Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Factories (Sight Testing and Illumination)

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Labour, what steps have been taken by his Department up to date to implement the recommendations in paragraph 23 (ii) and (iii) of the Sixty-fourth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure as to the increase in efficiency which could result if there was an extension of adequate sight-testing arrangements in factories and if proper illumination were provided at the point of work?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The Committee mentioned as calling for consideration the establishment of visual standards for various factory processes and the practical importance of sight testing in relation to the operations to be performed, particularly inspection work; but they made no specific recommendation on the subject. As regards lighting, improvements continue but shortage of labour, materials and fuel have to be taken into account.

Mr. Salt: If details of any particular case are sent, will my right hon. Friend consider them?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

Married Woman, Bolton (Civil Defence Duties)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mrs. Mary Wood, Mason Fold Cottage, Horwich, Bolton, Lancashire, has been ordered to give 12 hours per week for Civil Defence work and one evening per week for a lecture in addition; that her

husband is employed on an average 80 hours per week; that she is also employed for 48 hours per week; and will he allow her to leave her present employment as a textile worker altogether, or for a period each week, to enable her to keep house and comply with the requirements of Civil Defence?

Mr. Bevin: Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is really physically impossible for a married woman to do all that is required of her by his Department and by the Ministry of Home Security?

Mr. Bevin: I must ascertain the facts to see whether it is so or not.

Mobile Women Mineworkers (Directed Employment)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now concluded his inquiries into the cases of the three sisters Gilbody, ages 24, 22 and 19, respectively, 15, Slackey Fold, Hindley Green, Wigan, employed at the pithead, Gibfield Colliery, who have been advised by the local employment exchange officials that they may have to leave their present employment for other work a distance away from home; and, if so, with what results?

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that female screen hands at the Manchester colleries, Atherton and Astley, have been told they must give up their work at the collieries and take up other employment; that if this is carried out it will mean a shortage of labour at the collieries; and will he have inquiries made and make a statement on the position?

Mr. Bevin: I recognise, of course, the importance of the work of screening coal, but there are in this area immobile women with previous experience who can be engaged for this work, and in these circumstances I am not justified in allowing mobile women, who are urgently required elsewhere, to be retained on it. I understand that the three young women in question have applied for postponement on hardship grounds. These applications will be considered under the usual procedure.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people employed in the mining industry in any area will be totally unable to understand the emphasis put upon the requirements for coal and then taking these three girls, who are working near their own home, and putting them to work eight or ten miles away from their home?

Mr. Bevin: I must fill the preferences in accordance with the war needs. Where there are mobile women I have to transfer them to where the need is most urgent.

Mr. Tinker: If persons are sent to another job where wages are less than those they have received at the work which they have to leave, what power has the right hon. Gentleman to readjust the position?

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid my hon. Friend voted for the Bill in this House saying that I had to apply the rates to the job.

Mr. Tinker: I know I voted for the Bill, and I have voted for a lot of things during the war, but we have to try and make things as good as we can while the war is in progress.

Dental Nurses (Reservation)

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to allow dental nurses to be reserved in all age group when they have received definite training from their employers?

Mr. Bevin: I can give no general assurance of this kind. Some dental nurses may have other nursing qualifications more in demand for the war effort.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED POWERS (WAR SERVICE) ACT

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to apply the terms of the Allied Powers (War Service) Act to the subjects of other Allied nations now in this country, such as Americans and Russians; and whether in any action to be taken men and women will be equally affected?

Mr. Bevin: I am considering, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Act should be applied to United States citizens in this country. I do not at present contemplate any further

application of the Act, which can be applied only to men.

Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. Friend say why it is proposed to make this sex discrimination?

Mr. Bevin: Because the agreement with other countries deals with conscripts for entering the Forces, and there is no conscription of women in those countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS' CLUBS (CATERING WAGES REGULATION)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to treat members' clubs on the same basis as private houses for the purpose of catering wages regulation.

Mr. Bevin: The Catering Wages Bill will apply to workers employed in members' clubs in so far as a club or a part of a club is wholly or mainly engaged in the catering activities defined in the Bill.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the Minister give some guidance as to his intention? I asked this question on the Committee stage and failed to get an answer, and will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter his attention?

Mr. Bevin: I have answered the Question, and I have stated the facts.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Have not employees in some clubs been underpaid and overworked for a long time?

Mr. Bevin: The principle of the Bill is that it is not a question of whether an institution is run for profit or not but of the work on which a person is engaged. Therefore it is right and proper that there should be no differentiation in wages whether it is a club or a commercial concern.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the rules in force in the Carlton and other clubs are precisely the same as those in the Soviet Union on the subject of tipping—none is allowed?

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY ACCIDENT (CHEMICAL FUMES)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any information in connection with the 36 workers


who were overcome by chemical fumes in a certain factory on Friday last; how many received hospital treatment; and whether any of them had to remain in hospital?

Mr. Bevin: The trouble appears to have been due to the escape of fumes from a degreasing plant as a result of a combination of mistakes by different people not all of whom can be identified. I understand that 66 of the workers are still in hospital, but that their condition is not serious. Methods of preventing accidents of this kind are being further explored.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Reconstruction Areas (Acquisition by Local Authorities)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Town and County Planning what action he proposes to enable local authorities to acquire reconstruction areas as a whole for redevelopment to fit in with his Ministry's planning policy, in view of the fact that this policy has not yet been announced and approved by Parliament?

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Legislation will be required for this purpose.

Mr. Bossom: Can my right hon. Friend state when he will be able to give some indication of what he is going to recommend on the Scott and Barlow Reports, as it will be impossible for local authorities to proceed without this advice?

Mr. Morrison: I do not agree that it is impossible for local authorities to proceed, and the question which my hon. Friend has now asked is a different one from that which is on the Paper.

Public Relations Officer

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what are the duties of his new Director of Public Relations?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The duties of the officer responsible for the Ministry's Public Relations work are to encourage an intelligent public interest in planning problems and in the measures adopted for their solution, and to keep me informed of developments of public opinion on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions when, and how frequently, the Central Advisory Committee will meet; and what subjects will be on early agenda for consideration?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): My Central Advisory Committee will meet again as soon as possible after the Parliamentary Recess and further meetings will be held as frequently as the business demands. Among the subjects for early consideration are those to which special reference was made in the recent Debates on war pensions.

Sir I. Fraser: In view of the statement of the Prime Minister that this Committee would be a flexible and swift instrument, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the matters raised in the House will be pressed forward urgently?

Sir W. Womersley: Certainly, Sir, and I would like to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Committee is very representative of all parties in this House, of the British Legion and of war pensions committees, and they will certainly see that I press on with this mattter.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Pensions on what grounds he declines to accept pension responsibility in the case of the late Leading Aircraftsman John Holden, 652526, Royal Air Force, whose home address was 67, Hawden Street, Liverpool, he having been accidentally killed while on duty driving a Service tractor at Catterick on 24th October, 1942?

Sir W. Womersley: Mr. Holden's death was due to an attempt on his part to drive a tractor without experience. This was no part of his duty, nor was he in any way authorised to use the tractor. He was thus solely to blame for the unfortunate occurrence, and I regret that I am unable to accept responsibility for his death.

Mr. Kirby: Can the Minister say whether it is a fact that the officer commanding his unit and the Air Ministry have notified the relatives concerned that this man was actually on duty at the time?

Sir W. Womersley: I am not aware of that, but I do know that he was certainly at the aerodrome and that, quite unauthorised, he drove this tractor, which ran up a bank and overturned, and he was killed.

Mr. Kirby: Will the Minister look further into the question if I send the correspondence sent by the Ministry and by the officer concerned?

Sir W. Womersley: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Pensions for what reason he declined to deal with a claim to disability pension made by Mr. William Craig, of 2, Mona Street, Liverpool, who formerly served in the King's Liverpool Regiment from which he was discharged medically unfit and about whom the hon. Member for Everton wrote to him on 14th December, 1942?

Sir W. Womersley: Mr. Craig fell ill on 4th August, 1939, and his claim is that he is suffering from a disability due to service before that date. His case was accordingly referred to the War Office as only claims in respect of service during the war fall within the province of my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the setting up of pensions appeal tribunals?

Sir W. Womersley: I am authorised by the Government to say that they have accepted my proposal that arrangements should now proceed for setting up independent tribunals to heat appeals from all classes of claimants whose title to compensation is rejected under any of the various war pension schemes administered by my Department. Each tribunal will include a legal chairman, a doctor and a member of the service or class covered by the scheme under which the claim is made. It is the intention to establish nine tribunals to begin with. These will sit at various centres for the convenience of appellants. Their number will be increased as may be found practicable, but owing to the difficulty Which still exists in obtaining the full personnel required for the working of all the tribunals which may ultimately be necessary, the increase can

only be gradual. Legislation will be introduced as soon as possible after the House resumes its Sittings, and active steps are being taken to complete preparations for the tribunals to begin their work with the least possible delay.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say now how many tribunals he thinks he will be able to set up for a start?

Sir W. Womersley: I stated that in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question—nine.

Major Lyons: Is it proposed that all cases that have been refused by the Minister will be allowed to go to a tribunal for a re-hearing?

Sir W. Womersley: I have made it clear on many occasions that every person who thinks he ought to have a pension will' have the right to appeal.

Mr. Thorne: When the Minister sets up the tribunals, will he be good enough to publish the names?

Sir W. Womersley: I am not responsible for the selection of personnel. That is a matter for my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and I shall have to pass that request on to him.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that the fact that he sets them up will not keep us from expressing very grave dissatisfaction with their decisions?

Sir W. Womersley: If the experience of my predecessors and myself as to decisions reached by appeal tribunals after the last war is any criterion, I do not expect any decrease in my correspondence.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Will the. Minister supply the names of the medical personnel of the tribunals?

Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir; I want to make it quite clear that I do not intend to be in any way responsible for the selection of anybody; otherwise, how could it be said that the tribunals were impartial?

Mr. McEntee: Will the tribunals deal with women in the Services, and, if so, will the Minister see that some women are on the tribunals?

Sir W. Womersley: We shall certainly have to deal with women claimants,; because there are so many women in the


Forces now. The suggestion which the hon. Member has made will be passed on to the right quarter.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Indian Troops (Welfare)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for India the composition of the welfare service attached to our Indian troops; and whether this service is efficient for its purpose?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): There is at Indian General Headquarters a Directorate of Amenities and Welfare which is responsible for welfare in the widest sense, including education, comforts, clubs, institutes, holiday camps, canteens, concert parties, radio entertainment, etc. A per capita grant is available for such expenditure on Indian troops overseas, and the Government of India hold reserves for expenditure on their behalf on sports gear, musical instruments, and other amenities which may be demanded by overseas commands. A great deal of most valuable work is also being done for Indian troops by voluntary agencies such as the Red Cross, the Y.M.C.A., and the Indian Comforts Fund, which receive financial assistance from Army Funds or from the Viceroy's War Purposes Fund, from which more than £800,000 raised by voluntary contribution in India has been allotted to such agencies.

Sir T. Moore: May I assume from my right hon. Friend's reply that he is entirely satisfied that all proper and possible amenities are being supplied for these gallant troops?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.

Indian Army (War Services)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for India to what extent and in what theatres of war Indian troops are employed; and whether he can make a statement to the House on the part played by them?

Mr. Amery: I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the gallant and important part played by the Indian Army in many theatres of war. Indian troops are now serving in the United Kingdom, Tunisia, Middle East, Iraq, Iran, East

Africa and Ceylon in addition to India and the India/Burma Frontier. Previously, as is well known, they served in France and played a prominent part in the Libyan, Eritrean, Abyssinian and Syrian Campaigns and the forestalling of Rashid Ali's coup d'état in Iraq and the Axis machinations in Iran. Indian divisions played a prominent part in Malaya, where they bore the brunt of the early fighting. Indian troops also fought in Borneo and Hong Kong. In the prolonged and gallant rearguard actions of the Burma Campaign our forces were mainly Indian. In speaking of these Indian formations I do not wish it to be forgotten that Indian formations contain a proportion of British troops.
I regret that within the scope of this reply I cannot do justice to all the gallant actions in which Indian troops have participated since the outbreak of war; but the House will no doubt wish to add its tribute to the prowess of the 4th Indian Division, whose achievements have recently been the subject of a congratulatory telegram from the Prime Minister to the Viceroy. It was in the forefront of General Wavell's Western Desert offensive in 1940, played a leading part in the conquest of Italian East Africa, has been engaged since then in nearly all the fighting in the Western Desert and Libya and is now adding fresh laurels to its record under General Montgomery in Tunisia.

Sir T. Moore: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he will see that the facts he has just given are made widely public in the Press and on the radio in India, as well as in the great Allied countries of the United States and Soviet Russia?

Mr. Astor: Would my right hon. Friend consider giving these men a campaign medal for the long service they have had?

Sir T. Moore: May I have a reply?

Mr. Amery: We will do our best in that direction.

Military College (Advertisement for Assistant Masters)

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for India why is it necessary, when advertising for two assistant masters who are to teach geo-


graphy and history at an Indian military college, to emphasise that previous teaching experience is not essential but that candidates must be public school men?

Mr. Amery: The school in question is run on public school lines, and experience of public school life has consequently been regarded as a necessary qualification for masters.

Mr. Walkden: Is the Minister aware that an advertisement such as appeared in "The Times" quite recently does irreparable damage to us in countries like America and does not help in any way to promote good will and understanding with the peoples of India?

Mr. Amery: No. Sir; these schools are based on residence and on a certain amount of self-government by the boys themselves, and it is necessary that masters should be acquainted with the method of organisation.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will my right hon. Friend explain why half the Labour members of the Government wear the old school tie?

Mr. Sorensen: Can we take if that, generally speaking, for posts of this kind public school experience is a substitute for teaching experience?

Mr. Amery: No. Sir; certainly not.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Is not the Minister aware that many of us consider that in view of the rapid flux and iconoclasm of the times the qualification resented by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) in his Question is essential not only for the guidance of youth but also for the ruling of this great Realm and Empire?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that the Labour members of the Government who have been to public schools do not advertise for public school propagandists?

Mr. Speaker: That is rather far away from the Question.

Indians, South Africa (Status)

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any statement to make on the estimated effect on Indian emigration of the legislation recently passed by the Union of South Africa affecting the status of Indians in that Dominion?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir.

Mr. Sloan: As Indians are still members of the British Empire, and as the Minister has just finished paying a magnificent tribute to their fighting qualities and devotion to the Empire, is it his intention to make any representations to the South African Government regarding the depreciation of the status of Indians in South Africa?

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister realise what this involves to Indians in South Africa? Will he not take some steps to put the matter right?

Mr. Ammon: Would the Minister be interested to know that I have received in the last few minutes a cable from West Africa, from the President of the Natal Indian Association, protesting against this and calling attention to the bravery of their men in Africa? Is not this a very curious requital for that bravery?

Mr. Amery: The matter is one which has been dealt with by the Government of the Union of South Africa.

Earl Winterton: Surely my right hon. Friend is aware that representations have constantly been made in the past, both by the Government of India and, I think, His Majesty's Government, when the Union of South Africa have taken action which, in the opinion of the Government of India, was derogatory and inimical to Indian interests?

Mr. Amery: This has been represented by the Government of India and discussed between the Government of India and the Union of South Africa.

Mr. Sloan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (CONSTITUTION)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Burma the intention of His Majesty's Government regarding the future Government of Burma; whether an alteration of the constitutional position is under consideration; and whether he will consider the advisability of announcing more precisely to the people of Burma the intention of His Majesty's Government respecting the future of their country?

The Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Amery): The aim of His Majesty's Government is to assist Burma to attain complete self-government within the British Commonwealth as soon as circumstances permit. This policy has repeatedly been declared. No more precise announcement is possible in present circumstances, especially as it is impossible to foresee what the conditions will be when the liberation of Burma from the Japanese invader has taken place.

M. Sorensen: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is highly desirable to impress on the Burmese people our intentions after the war, and is it not true that consideration of a future Constitution for Burma is taking place at present?

Mr. Amery: We have made it clear to the Burmese people what our general intentions are. Present circumstances do not allow of any more precise statement.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that consideration of the matter is taking place at present?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

National Fire Service Pensions (Local Authorities)

Mr. Mack: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the unfair liability imposed on fire brigade authorities, he will reimburse them any payments payable by them under the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, on account of the results of a war injury?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North-Eastern Derbyshire (Mr. H. White) on 15th April, of which I am sending him a copy.

Trade Union Officials

Lieut.-Colonel Boles: asked the Home Secretary under what regulation or other authority exemption has been granted to trade union officials from some Civil Defence and fire guard duties?

Mr. H. Morrison: Trade union officials as a class are not exempt either from

directions into the Civil Defence Services under Defence Regulation 29BA or from fire guard duties under the Fire Prevention Orders. As regards the former, the choice of persons to be directed into the Civil Defence Services is in the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, and there is a right of appeal to a local Appeal Board on grounds of exceptional hardship against such directions. In the case of fire guard duties, the Military Service (Hardship) Committees have power to grant exemption on grounds of exceptional hardship; in addition a Government Department may exempt any person from fire guard duties where they consider that exemption should be granted owing to the nature or length of hours of his work or any circumstances affecting the public interest.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REGISTER

Mr. Granville: asked the Home Secretary when he intends to make a statement or to issue a Report on the question which he has been considering as to the possibility of revising the electoral register in order to enable an increased number of adults to exercise the franchise?

Mr. Cocks: asked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the revision of the electoral register particularly in relation to future by-elections?

Mr. H. Morrison: I trust I shall be in a position to make a statement shortly after the House reassembles.

Mr. Granville: In view of the serious growth in Fascism and anti-Semitism in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the real defence against this is the fullest possible working of political democracy, and will he expedite this Report?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I do not follow the question.

Mr. Cocks: In considering the matter, will my right hon. Friend realise that if the young, who are building up the future, are not allowed to vote, this House will lose all its authority and will become more and more representative of the folly of the past and the world which is disappearing for ever?

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. We will keep all that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-SEMITIC PAMPHLET

Mr. Pritt: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an anti-Semitic pamphlet called "The Truth about the Jews," published by Alexander Ratcliffe, of 2, Endrick Drive, Bearsden, near Glasgow, and printed by R. Thomson, 11, Spout Mouth, Glasgow, C.1; and whether he will suppress the pamphlet and, if necessary, seek fresh powers to do so?

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that the appropriate authorities have under consideration the question whether legal proceedings should and can be taken against those responsible for the publication of this pamphlet.

Oral Answers to Questions — REMAND HOMES (ACCOMMO- DATION)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Home Secretary what progress has been made during the last 12 months in the provision of the requisite accommodation in remand homes; and whether there is still a deficiency in certain areas and, if so, in which ones?

Mr. H. Morrison: In the last 12 months local authorities have increased the number of places available in remand homes in England and Wales by about 300. Work is in progress for the provision of another 440 places, and further schemes are under consideration. The shortage' is perhaps greatest in the Tyneside and South Wales, though there are other areas where more accommodation is needed, especially for girls.

Mr. Harvey: Are the special measures being taken in the areas where there is still a shortage?

Mr. Morrison: We are doing all we can. If there is anything the hon. Member can do which will be helpful, I shall be grateful.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is any preparation being made to provide the necessary personnel for such further remand homes, with the very difficult qualifications needed?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think these difficulties will be insuperable.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE PERSONNEL OVERSEAS (MARRIAGE BY PROXY)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the further representations which have been made to him in favour of enabling men serving with the Armed Forces abroad to marry women in this country by proxy; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mrs. Adamson: asked the Home Secretary whether the Government have yet made a decision on the question of the legalisation of marriage by proxy for the men and women in the Services?

Mr. H. Morrison: This matter has received the careful attention of the Government, who fully appreciate the motives which have prompted representations on this subject. The legal requirement that for the purpose of entering into a marriage contract both parties must be together in time and place is liable to give rise to cases of special hardship under war conditions; and the question whether war-time circumstances would justify altering the law so as to enable separate declarations to be made by each of the parties at separate times and places has received careful consideration. Such an alteration would involve large changes of principle, including abandonment of the principle that the man and woman shall exchange their marriage vows in the presence of each other. What would be the consequences on a long-term view of such changes in the marriage law is a question which would necessarily raise doubts and differences of opinion and there may well be apprehension as to the likelihood of abuse. The issues are important and far-reaching, and the conclusion which the Government have reached, after examining the problem, is that a desire to deal sympathetically with particular war-time cases of hardship would not justify them in proposing such large changes in the marriage law as a scheme for authorising proxy marriages would entail.

Mr. Edwards: Is not the Minister aware that, in the special circumstances of the war, there ought not to be any more difficulty for this Government to make arrangements than for other Governments, and, in view of the vital consequences affecting this situation, ought not


the Government to agree to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Morrison: We have fully considered the aspects to which my hon. Friend has referred. I do not say it is impossible to deal with them, but the broad conclusion that the Government have come to is that it is undesirable to make the change proposed.

Mrs. Adamson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's decision will brand a large number of innocent babies as illegitimate and will cause hardship and sorrow to thousands of decent British girls and create depression and lower the morale of many of our fighting men in the various theatres of war? Is he further aware that other countries have practised this not only in war-time but in peacetime? Surely the Law Officers of the Crown might have brought forward a scheme which would have made it practicable and avoided the abuses my right hon. Friend has outlined?

Mr. Morrison: I fully appreciate the point to which my hon. Friend calls attention. We have personally discussed the matter, and she has given me great help in it. It is true, as she says, that there may be some tragic cases, but I think, and the Government think, that if we make marriage a little less serious than it is, we may have many more tragedies as a consequence of proxy marriages.

Mrs. Adamson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising the question on the Adjournment after the Easter Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — INFORMATION TO ENEMY (CONVICTIONS)

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Home Secretary the number of persons in this country convicted for making statements useful to the enemy since December, 1942?

Mr. H. Morrison: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to convictions under Regulation 3 of the Defence Regulations. I regret that the figures for which he asks are not yet available.

Mr. Davidson: If I send my right hon. Friend a report of a speech which named a certain firm in the North and specifically

mentioned the type of gun produced there, the amount of T.N.T. and cordite produced and the number of Ministry of Aircraft Production factories in the area, will he make the necessary inquiries with a view to taking further action?

Mr. Morrison: I certainly will.

Mr. Davidson: Will it make any difference if I point out that it was made by a Member of the House and a member of the Government?

Mr. Buchanan: May we have an assurance that no less serious action will be taken because the offender is a member of the Government than would be taken against anyone else?

Mr. Morrison: I promised that I would consider the representations my hon. Friend makes, and I will still consider them very carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

War Films (Schools)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that war films showing the dropping of bombs, the shattering of buildings and the destruction of human life, have been shown to elementary and secondary schools and to mentally retarded schoolchildren; whether he has approved of the display of such films; and whether, in consistency with the practice of cinemas and in consideration of ethical and psychological factors, he will prevent the display of such films to schools either as entertainment or otherwise?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I do not know to which exhibition of war films the hon. Member refers. If he will give me further particulars I will make inquiries.

Mr. Sorensen: If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that this exhibition has been given, will he take steps to dissuade other education committees from presenting such films?

Mr. Butler: I certainly do not underestimate the importance of the matter.

National Camp Schools

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education how many vacancies at present exist in camp schools?

Mr. Butler: The places in the National Camp Schools amount to 7,296, of which 5,320 were filled on 31st March.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his utmost to see that these empty places are filled during the summer months?

Mr. Butler: We took steps in December to fill these places. We will do our best to prosecute the matter with vigour.

Luxmoore Committee (Report)

Mr. Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education to what extent he is being consulted about action arising from the Report of the Luxmoore Committee; and what is the attitude of his Department?

Mr. Butler: I am taking the most active interest in this question and am frequently in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Lindsay: As this Report involves questions which go to the root of local government and the whole education system, will the right hon. Gentleman see that no decision is taken which will prejudice the comprehensive nature of his own Bill?

Mr. Butler: I, personally, am very keen on the subject and very interested in it, and I am in touch with my right hon. Friend about future policy.

United Nations (Co-operation)

Mr. Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in his discussions with Allied Ministers of Education, he will consider the establishment of a United Nations Education Office comparable in status to the International Labour Office, in order to cement the evident desire for close co-operation in these matters?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; this is a question which I should like to see considered by the Conference of Allied Ministers, though I doubt whether the time has yet come for the working out of such a project in detail.

Mr. Lindsay: While grateful for what my right hon. Friend has already done, may I ask him to consider inviting representatives of America, Russia and China to this conference?

Mr. Butler: I have already done so.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLETING ALLOWANCES

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the total cost, exclusive of taxation and interest on capital, per resident week in hostels managed by the National Service Hostels Corporation is £1 12s. 7d., he will give further consideration to the scale of billeting payments?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): No, Sir. As indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 25th February last, I cannot agree that these two matters are comparable.

Sir J. Mellor: Does not the comparison show that the £1 1s. paid to private householders is not adequate?

Mr. Brown: I am afraid that my hon. Friend and I do not agree on that.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Agricultural Workers' Cottages

Earl Winterton: asked the Minister of Health how many of the houses in the scheme for building 3,000 houses for agricultural workers have been commenced or completed; and when it is expected that the whole 3,000 houses will be ready for occupation?

Mr. E. Brown: No building has yet commenced, but the preliminary work is under way in almost all rural districts concerned and covering 2,962 houses. By 9th April sites had been selected and approved for 2,054 houses and plans had been approved for 126. As indicated on 4th February in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) the rate of progress will depend on the labour and materials that can be made available having regard to the requirements of other important schemes. In view of previous experience of building in war-time conditions I would hesitate to forecast the date of completion of the whole 3,000 houses. The local housing authorities will, I am confident, spare no effort to achieve the aim set before them when the scheme was announced of having as many houses as possible ready for occupation by harvest-time.

Mr. De la Bère: Gracious heavens, what an answer! Is no progress to be made? Will the right hon. Gentleman report progress after the Recess or resign? He really must get on.

Mr. Brown: I know from experience that my hon. Friend speaks loudest when he has been asleep.

Earl Winterton: In view of the fact that this question of providing houses for food producers is of the utmost importance, is my right hon. Friend aware of the deplorable contrast between the celerity of erecting buildings for Service purposes and the slowness in erecting these buildings? Surely he should make representations to the War Cabinet so that a proper start can be made with this meagre scheme?

Mr. Brown: The rural district councils have done admirable work in having already done as much as I have reported, and I am sure that they will push ahead as quickly as labour and materials become available.

Mr. De la Bère: The right hon. Gentleman knows that what has been said is true and that he does not like it and cannot think of a suitable answer.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the general objections to concrete floors for living rooms in the rural cottages which it is proposed to build; and why alternative forms of floors are not acceptable?

Mr. Brown: I am aware of the objections to concrete floors for living rooms, but I am afraid there is no alternative base while timber cannot be made available for the purpose. In accordance, however, with notes on materials and design and the specification prepared for the guidance of the local authorities by the Ministry of Works, in consultation with my Department and the other Departments concerned, the floors of the downstairs rooms may be covered with tiles or, in the case of parlours, with wood.

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Health whether, in constructing rural cottages, he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists in many parts of the country with the different designs; and whether, to meet such dissatisfaction, he will arrange, after stipulating the maximum financial outlay and the prescribed amount of accommodation, for greater latitude to be given to the local authorities as to what type of house they can erect within these limits?

Mr. Brown: As the reply is long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the answer in any way acquiescent to the suggestion in my Question?

Mr. Brown: It is a very full statement, and I am in a dilemma. I must either read the whole of it or circulate it, hoping that all Members will read it.

Hon. Members: Circulate it.

Following is the reply:

I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction regarding the type plans, the bigger of which were drawn up by a sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Dudley in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and after careful consideration of a large volume of evidence from housewives and others. As my hon. and gallant Friend will, I am sure agree, no particular plan is likely to receive unanimous approval in view of the differing circumstances, including taste, between various parts of the country and various sites. Some objections have been received on details of design and construction, such as flat roofs and concrete floors. My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that limitations of this kind are, through shortage of materials, inevitable in war-time building schemes. This is, I know, fully understood by local authorities, who will do everything they can to overcome the many difficulties confronting them. From this scheme we shall gain experience which will be of great value in deciding whether further schemes can be undertaken whilst the present conditions persist.

As regards the last part of the Question, local authorities are aware that the type plans which in themselves cover a wide range of sizes—non-parlour as well as small and large parlour—are intended for general guidance only and that alternative proposals will be entertained, provided that substantially the same standards of accommodation and amenity are afforded and that regard is had to the limitations on materials. I do not think that there would be any advantage in adopting the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend but I can assure him that I am fully alive to the importance of


finance and that the tenders will be carefully considered from the point of view of value for money.

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with his scheme for constructing rural houses, he is prepared, in suitable cases, to approve thatched roofs?

Mr. Brown: I shall certainly be willing to give consideration to proposals on the lines mentioned.

Furnished Premises (Rents)

Mr. Holmes: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make available to this House the information collected from local authorities in connection with the charging of excessive rents for furnished premises?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. I recently called for further information from the 1,468 local authorities concerned and have now received returns from 1,180. I will with permission circulate the gist of the information derived from these returns, as it is rather long, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lindsay: Could my right hon. Friend say when he proposes to take action, because what is going on is very embarrassing to our American friends, at any rate in London?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman had better read the answer. If he does that he will find that only 101 out of 1,468 authorities report having received complaints, that over half of them on investigation proved to be unfounded, and that in 75 of the remaining 87 the local authorities secured a reduction of rent by negotiation.

Following is the reply:

Only 101 authorities report having received complaints about excessive rents for furnished premises, the number of such complaints being 202. On investigation 115, or more than half, proved to be unfounded, and in 75 of the remaining 87 the local authorities secured reductions in the rent by negotiations with the landlord. Eleven prosecutions were undertaken, of which eight were successful.

These reports are very similar to those for the previous periods, and like them provide no support for the contention that the practice of charging excessive rents for furnished premises presents a grave

problem all over the country. They confirm both the conclusion previously reached that the problem is relatively a limited one, and the view I have frequently expressed that the existing powers of local authorities are generally adequate to remedy abuses as and when they arise. The complete liquidation of this problem depends on the vigorous exercise by local authorities of their powers and of the cooperation with them of aggrieved tenants, without which they are helpless. I am hopeful that the greater publicity I have recently urged upon local authorities in supplementation of the great help given by the Press will remove any present reluctance on the part of tenants to take complaints to the authorities and will lead to much greater co-operation between them. I am keeping in close touch with the position and am asking local authorities for further reports in six months.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE INSTITUTIONS (INMATES)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the rise in the cost of tobacco and the fact that it is illegal for public assistance committees to grant pocket money to occupants of public assistance institutions who receive no pensions and are under 65 years of age, he will introduce legislation to extend some concessions to these inmates who are unable to make purchases of any kind?

Mr. E. Brown: I think my hon. Friend may be under some misapprehension in this matter. Local authorities have power to provide tobacco for inmates of their public assistance institutions, so that the considerations referred to in the Question do not in themselves constitute any reason for extending the power to grant pocket money.

Mr. Denville: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman consider granting a separate pension for all old folk in these institutions?

Mr. Brown: That is a much wider issue.

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now considered a published statement, particulars whereof have been furnished, purporting to describe a visit to aged persons in a certain institution; whether he proposes to issue any observations thereon; and what


steps are contemplated to ensure improvements in this and similar other institutions for the aged and infirm throughout the country?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir. This statement has been followed by a series of letters published in the same journal, which make it clear that the institution referred to is by no means typical. The allegations made had been previously communicated to me, and I had arranged for one of my inspectors to visit the institution. Some of the defects found had been remedied before the statement was published, and others are still receiving attention, but some, which involve structural alterations, cannot be fully dealt with until labour and materials become more freely available.

Major Lyons: Where steps can be taken to improve the lot of these people will my right hon. Friend take steps and not wait for published statements to draw his attention to the matter?

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (SALUTING IN STREETS)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of abolishing saluting in the streets of London and other large cities where this practice is embarrassing to both officers and men because of its frequency?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir. A salute is an acknowledgment of the King's Commission and a courtesy to Allied officers, and I do not consider it desirable to differentiate between one city or town and another in this matter.

Mr. Kirby: While appreciating what the right hon. Gentleman says, may I ask him whether he appreciates that the officers and men concerned will be deeply disappointed with his answer?

The Prime Minister: I Should take exactly the opposite view.

Mr. Cluse: Has it not been usually understood that saluting is an acknowledgment of the King's uniform?

Oral Answers to Questions — INVASION WARNING

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Prime Minister what arrange-

ment have been made to replace the ringing of church bells as a warning of invasion?

The Prime Minister: We have come to the conclusion that this particular method of warning was redundant, and not in itself well adapted to the present conditions of the war.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend say what alternative arrangements have been made? Will he consider the use of sirens?

The Prime Minister: I said that we came to the conclusion that this particular method was redundant. Therefore replacement does not arise. For myself, I cannot help feeling that anything like a serious invasion would be bound to leak out.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Prime Minister anticipating an invasion between now and the next birthday of Hitler?

The Prime Minister: The improbability of invasion depends on the high degree of preparation maintained in this country.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: How can the news possibly leak out when it is an offence to spread alarm and despondency?

The Prime Minister: Factual statements of that kind, especially if well-intentioned, would not fall within that category.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State for War told me only three weeks ago that the sounding of church bells as an invasion warning was the only signal he could think of?

The Prime Minister: I do not know where that statement was made.

Mr. Stokes: In the House.

The Prime Minister: The matter has been exhaustively reviewed, and the Secretary of State fully accepts the conclusion come to.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Since permission has been given to ring the bells at certain appointed hours of service, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that they would still be an effective warning if they were rung, say, in the middle of the night?

The Prime Minister: The significance of invasion no longer attaches to the ringing of bells.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' ATTENDANCES)

Mr. Reakes: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to formulate a plan under which a record of attendances of hon. Members of the House may be kept?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGIMENTATION AND COMPULSION

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that at the earliest possible date after the cessation of hostilities they will take steps to relax, to some degree, the present methods of regimentation and compulsion which have been brought into being as a result of the war?

The Prime Minister: The transition from war to peace will no doubt bring many changes in its train; but I do not desire at present to expatiate unduly on these topics.

Mr. De la Bère: Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend will recall that regimentation is a negation of all initiative, and seeing that he is the best exponent of initiative, will he be sympathetic towards this proposal?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPUTY SPEAKER ACT, 1855

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to introduce a Bill to amend the Deputy Speaker Act, 1855, to cover any vacancies in the Speakership?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (CONSCRIPTION)

Sir William Davison: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give further consideration to the desirability of extending conscription to Northern Ireland in view of the altered circumstances which now prevail since the matter was under consideration some two years ago; and, in particular, will he inform the House of the nature of the difficulties which would interfere with the imposition of conscription in Northern Ireland as elsewhere in the United King-

dom of which Northern Ireland is an integral part, considering that the people and Government of Northern Ireland are in favour of the proposal and the need for the enrolment of additional men and women to assist the war effort?

The Prime Minister: I have no statement to make on this subject.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some thousands of women whose sons and husbands are engaged on munition work in this country, are about to be called up by the Minister of Labour to work 40 hours a week, and that people in factories and offices are told that they will probably have to work 50 hours a week? In these circumstances is it not desirable that in Northern Ireland, which, as he recently told the House, is an integral part of the United Kingdom, the 20,000 men and women who are unemployed should be made available? Does not my right hon. Friend realise that people feel very keenly about this?

The Prime Minister: I feel keenly about it myself, but I have no statement to make.

Professor Savory: As the right hon. Gentleman has twice repeated that it is more trouble than it is worth to introduce conscription into Northern Ireland, from whom does he anticipate trouble? Is it from Northern Ireland or from a neutral State which has no jurisdiction over Northern Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND INSURANCE

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether he can furnish time for a Debate on the Motion relating to Workmen's Compensation Benefits and Insurance standing in the name of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) and other hon. Members?

[That in the opinion of this House employers should continue to have a direct responsibility for safety in their factories, and that the rates of benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act should be raised so as to bear a closer relation to average earnings, and that all employers should be compelled to insure with an approved insurance company or mutual society or to enter into an approved form of bond.]

The Prime Minister: I regret that the present state of public Business affords no opportunity for discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Dairy Farmers (Human Food Crops)

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is his intention to compel farmers with 100 per cent. attested pedigree milk herds to grow such crops as potatoes, sugar-beet and wheat if this necessitates reducing the size or restricting the expansion of such herds?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As a general rule a dairy farmer is expected as a first priority to provide from his own land a substantial proportion of the feeding requirements of his cows. He is then expected, if he has further land available, to make his contribution towards essential human food crops. In some cases, however, it may be in the national interest for a dairy farmer to grow a high proportion of crops for direct human consumption and to be given supplementary coupons under the feeding stuffs rationing Scheme for the feeding of his dairy herd. The responsibility for administering these arrangements rests with county war agricultural executive committees acting under general instructions from my Department which are designed to secure the maximum production of milk and of crops for direct human consumption. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and will let me have details, I shall be happy to investigate it.

County War Agricultural Executive Committees

Mr. Loverseed: asked the Minister of Agriculture the method of appointment, election or selection of the members of county war agricultural committees?

Mr. Hudson: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on 23rd April last.

Mr. Loverseed: Is the Minister aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists among farmers with the composition of county war agricultural committees, and will he take steps or consider means towards making these more representative of all who are engaged in agriculture?

Mr. Hudson: Perhaps the hon. Member had better read my answer, when he will see that his Question has already been answered by implication in that answer.

Dispossessed Farmers (Appeals)

Mr. Loverseed: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any, and if so what, rules of procedure have been laid down for the hearing of cases in which farmers have been dispossessed of their farms by county war agricultural committees; and whether there is any right of appeal?

Mr. Hudson: In reply to both parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my statement in the Debate on the Adjournment on 9th October, 1941.

Mr. Loverseed: Is the Minister aware that cases exist in which efficient farmers have been dispossessed, presumably with the intention of installing sons of farmers with a view to keeping them out of the Forces?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir, I have no evidence of that whatever.

Flower Growing

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will permit market gardeners to grow a limited number of flowers for cutting, in view of the beneficial effect of flowers even in war-time and of the difficulty which horticulturists have of paying their overhead charges by growing vegetables only?

Mr. Hudson: Under the Horticultural (Cropping) Amendment and Consolidation Order, 1942, flower crops (other than flower seeds to raise a flowering crop) may be grown in the open up to 25 per cent. of the acreage grown on the holding in 1939, or if no return was made for that year under the Agricultural Returns Act, 1925, up to 50 per cent. of the acreage grown to flowers on the holding in 1941.

Colonel Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will relax the Cropping Order of 1943, which prohibits nurserymen from growing any flowers whatever from seed and substitute a reduction to 20 per cent. of the individual nurseryman's pre-war practice in that respect?

Mr. Hudson: I regret that in view of the over-riding interests of food production, I cannot accept my hon. and gallant


Friend's suggestion. The provision in question was included in the Horticultural (Cropping) Amendment and Consolidation Order, 1942, in order to ensure that land which could grow a food crop is not used for non-essential purposes. County war agricultural executive committees have been instructed to allow exceptions to the provision in the case of plants of which the seed has a short germination life.

Workers (Civil Defence Duties)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the arrangements which he has made in connection with the hours of duty as part-time workers in the Civil Defence services for full-time agricultural workers during the hay and harvesting season, having special regard to the short supply of labour available on many farms throughout the country?

Mr. Hudson: Instructions have already been issued by the Home Office to Fire Force Commanders that in fixing the hours of duty of part-time personnel full consideration should be given to the ordinary employment and day-to-day obligations of the persons concerned. Similar instructions govern the service of other part-time Civil Defence personnel. I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security that he has no reason to think that local authorities will not pay full regard to the needs of agricultural workers at times of special pressure.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend take active steps to ensure that all these local authorities really do realise the grave shortage of labour on farms? This really is a genuine matter which should receive every consideration. Local authorities are not always aware of the difficulties.

Mr. Hudson: If my hon. Friend knows of any particular case and will let me know, I will have it looked into.

Rooks (Destruction)

Mr. Harvey: asked the Minister of Agriculture what representations he has received objecting to the destruction of rooks under the Rooks Order, 1940; and whether he will postpone the date on which the Order will come into force this year?

Mr. Hudson: I have received a few representations, mostly from the same individual, objecting to the destruction of rooks under the Rooks Order, 1940. There is no question of postponing the date on which the Order will come into force this year, as it has been in force since 17th April, 1940.

Workers (Badge)

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will sanction a badge for agricultural workers to indicate that though they have no uniform they are doing vital war work?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. That is not thought necessary.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: The Minister said that it is not necessary. Is he aware that it is often not necessary to give recognition to various forms of war service, but the fact remains that it is done? Is the Minister further aware that when it is done it gives great encouragement and satisfaction to those who are giving good service to the country?

Mrs. Tate: Since when has the hon. and gallant Member represented agriculture?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Nurses (Civil Defence Service)

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to safeguard the interests of nurses who may leave a superannuate post to take a post as nurse under Civil Defence in consequence of their losing their superannuation rights if their post under Civil Defence is at a lower salary than their previous one?

Mr. E. Brown: Apart from the general provisions of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, which preserve the superannuation rights of persons who cease to serve a local authority in order to undertake war service (which is defined to include Civil Defence service), there is specific provision for the preservation of such rights in certain circumstances where a person leaves a superannuable post and subsequently enters the employment of another local authority in Civil Defence service.

Mr. Messer: Is the Minister aware that if a nurse leaves one authority where she


holds a superannuable post and takes a position at higher rates she can still be superannuated, but that if she takes a position at a lower rate she loses her rights? Is this fair?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will call my attention to any case he has in mind. It would seem to depend upon the interpretation of war service.

National Health Service

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health whether, in the reorganisation of the National Medical Service, it is proposed to compensate doctors for capital invested in purchasing practices and premises used for professional purposes; and when it is proposed that a general statement will be made on the subject?

Mr. E. Brown: Compensation for loss of value of practices will certainly be one of the subjects with which my proposals will deal. On the last part of the Question, I would refer to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 15th April.

Tuberculosis

Mr. Pritt: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to an article by Sir William Jameson in "Current Affairs," No. 37, of 13th February, 1943, entitled "National Health"; what special financial help is now being given to sufferers from tuberculosis to meet cases where treatment is put off or stopped for financial reasons; and how much has already been paid out under this head to the latest date for which figures are available?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. The article in question had reference to arrangements which were in preparation at the time of its writing and to which I referred in the statement which I made in the House on 8th October last. The arrangements are not yet in actual operation, but the details have now been worked out in consultation with medical experts and representatives of local authorities, and I am glad to have this opportunity of informing the House that a Circular and memoranda containing detailed guidance for the local authorities by whom the allowances are to be administered will be issued next week.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the difficulty of married couples, one of whom is suffering from tuberculosis and is frequently an ex-Serviceman, in finding suitable accommodation; and whether he will give special attention to this matter with a view to securing accommodation with the necessary space and sleeping facilities for this type of complaint?

Mr. Brown: I am aware of the general difficulties, but any possible alleviation must depend on the accommodation available for housing purposes and the needs of different classes of the community. I know that the local authorities concerned give these cases their most sympathetic consideration and if my hon. Friend has any specific instance in mind and will let me have particulars, I would be glad to look into the case in consultation with the local authority.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an increasing number of these cases, which cause great hardship, and could not some of the houses reserved for bombed-out families be used for this purpose? Could he consult the General Tuberculosis Council?

Mr. Brown: It would depend very much upon where these cases arose, but I would much prefer to deal with a particular case or cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Children's Allowances

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate cost at the present time of instituting a system of children's allowances on the lines of the Beveridge Report at the rate of 5s. per week, taking into consideration the economy that would be effected by the consequent reduction in the cost of service children's allowances?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper which was issued on this subject in May last (Cmd. 6354) in which he will find full details of the cost of various schemes of children's allowances at the 5s. rate. As explained in that paper, it would appear, for a variety of reasons, to be impracticable to realise any saving in respect of children of men in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Mander: In view of the very great interest in children's allowances, could not my right hon. Friend consider introducing them in the near future, so that people can have some of their Beveridge jam now?

Sir K. Wood: That is quite a different question from the Question on the Paper asking the cost.

Unset Precious Stones (Purchase Tax)

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Purchase Tax is payable in respect of unset or uncut precious stones; and, if so, at what rate?

Sir K. Wood: Owing to the difficulties in imposing such a tax, such stones are not chargeable with Purchase Tax.

Sir A. Southby: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Purchase Tax is supposed to be payable on luxury articles, and surely articles which are not required for use in industry are definitely luxury articles and should be taxed?

Sir K. Wood: I agree, and I should be only too glad to do it, but I am afraid it has always been considered that the difficulties would not be worth the yield in tax.

Mr. Hopkinson: In view of the evasion of other taxes will the right hon. Gentleman see whether he can at any rate get the Purchase Tax collected?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, I will certainly examine the matter.

Sir A. Southby: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether secondhand jewellery pays 100 per cent. tax?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. and gallant Member had better put that Question on the Paper.

Taxation (Comparison with other Countries)

Sir A. Southby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total yearly amount per head of the population raised in direct and indirect taxation in Great Britain, the United States of America, Russia, Canada, Australia and South Africa, respectively; and whether any figures are available which would afford a useful comparison as regards Germany and Italy?

Sir K. Wood: I will obtain such information as is available in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's Question and will in due course circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Industrial Accidents, Compensation (Taxation)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in cases of awards of compensation for loss of limbs in industrial accidents, he will consider making some allowance from Income Tax for cost of annual repairs to artificial limbs or, alternatively, allow such awards to be free of tax?

Sir K. Wood: Awards of compensation for personal injury are not regarded as income for Income Tax purposes. If my hon. Friend has any case in mind in which it is suggested that such compensation is liable, I will make inquiries if he will send me particulars. With regard to the suggestion for an Income Tax allowance in respect of the cost of annual repairs to an artificial limb I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) of 8th September last.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the income is often insufficient to pay for the cost of repairs and renewals, owing to high taxation?

Evacuees, United States (Sterling Remittances)

Mr. Reakes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now consider increasing the amount of sterling which may be remitted each month for the support of British women and children registered as evacuated to the United States of America and the British Dominions?

Sir K. Wood: The amount of remittances to be allowed to women and children evacuated to the United States of America and Canada is kept under review. I am not prepared at the present time to authorise an increase. There is no restriction on remittances to British Dominions other than Canada, since these are within the sterling area.

Mr. Reakes: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how mothers with children in the United States can meet the tremendous rise in the cost of living which has


taken place, and whether it is not a question of raising these amounts now instead of waiting until some later date?

Sir K. Wood: I am keeping this matter under review. I have not had any representations lately, but I will have regard to what my hon. Friend has said.

Government Departments (Telephone Calls)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with free telephone calls for Whitehall Government Departments and services financed directly by the Exchequer which the Government are sanctioning for the duration of the war, he will give an assurance that each Government Department shall keep a monthly record of all outgoing calls, with a view to curtailing unnecessary calls and avoiding congestion throughout the country?

Sir K. Wood: The need for rigid economy in the use of telephone communication facilities has been impressed on all Government Departments. While the suggestion made by my hon. Friend will be borne in mind, I doubt whether manpower considerations would permit of its adoption.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, and not be astonished if I say, that I approve of the proposed action of the Government; and will he bear in mind that if Government Departments take as long with their telephone calls as they do over their correspondence, there will not be much service left for the general public?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, but nothing that my hon. Friend says astonishes me.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend save some of his powers of astonishment? Stranger things may come.

Sir Alfred Beit: Can my right hon. Friend say what difference will be made in Post Office receipts owing to the decline in telegraphing and telephoning by Government Departments?

Sir K. Wood: I will look into that matter.

Bank Notes (High Denominations)

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has

any statement to make about the continued issue of bank notes of high denominations?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, with my concurrence the Bank of England propose to cease forthwith to issue bank notes of the denominations of £10 and upwards and will withdraw those already issued as opportunity offers. One object of the change is to simplify the production and handling of the Note Issue. It will also provide an additional handicap for those who may contemplate breaches of Exchange Control or other Regulations.

Mr. Mathers: Will some of those notes be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Post-War Currency Policy (United States Proposals)

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the text of the United States proposals for an international stabilisation fund will be available to Members?

Sir K. Wood: The text will be available to Members to-day.

War Damage Payments

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Treasury under the War Damage Act has paid out more in compensation than it has received in premiums and contributions, this position corresponds with anticipations; what is the difference referred to which the Treasury has met; what is the amount of unpaid contributions; and whether the War Damage Commission consider that any variation of the amount of future contributions will be entailed?

Sir K. Wood: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The position when the original War Damage Act was introduced was too uncertain for estimates of expenditure to be made. The Act therefore provided in Section 22 for an eventual review by the Treasury of the amount of the contribution to be exacted under Part I. Premiums under Part II are fixed from time to time in the light of experience. It is much too soon for the review under Section 22 to be undertaken, but as I


said when moving the Second Reading of the amending Act last year, my present inclination, if any variation of the total contribution were necessary, would be to alter the number rather than the amount of the annual instalments. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 15th April to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). The amount of contributions outstanding is £7,500,000. Part of this amount will be recovered by deduction from value payments when they are made, and a further part is not recoverable so long as the Inland Revenue Department is satisfied that by reason of war damage properties are unfit for their normal use.

Salvage Awards, Tugs (Income Tax)

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why Income Tax is deducted from the salvage awards to tugs especially engaged on salvage work and not from awards to tugs casually so employed; and whether he is aware that this discrimination is causing confusion and dissatisfaction?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) on 28th April last, in which he announced that a wartime concession had been authorised under which salvage awards to officers and crews of ships not specifically employed on salvage work, in respect of services rendered during the war, would not be assessed to Income Tax. The distinction to which my hon. Friend refers proceeds on that principle. Salvage awards to crews of tugboats not specifically engaged on salvage work are treated as not being liable to tax, but in the case of tugboats specifically engaged on salvage work the awards arise from the work on which the crews are regularly employed, and there can be no question of relieving their income from tax.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN

Reginald Edward Manningham-Buller, Esquire, for the County of Northampton with the Soke of Peterborough (Daventry Division).

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL REPORTED

BRIDGWATER GAS BILL

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report, to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I beg to move, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 4th May.

Earl Winterton: I want to raise a point on this Motion, and I apologise for not having given my right hon. Friend any more notice of it in advance. In peace time, when there was any prospect of any crisis there was always a proviso that, during the Recess usually I think in the case of the long recesses but also in the case of short recesses, by which Mr. Speaker's predecessor in the Chair had power to call the House together. I do not ask my right hon. Friend to insert such a proviso in this Motion, but the point seems to be one for consideration whether the same power should not exist to-day even in the case of a short Adjournment when there might be circumstances in which it would be desirable to recall the House.

Mr. Eden: I can assure the Noble Lord that that power does exist now.

Question put, and agreed to.

ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is the third occasion on which I have tried to make the statement I want to make to-day. I suppose it is an accepted Welsh tradition that the Welsh have to try three times. The short point is with regard to the war service grants that are paid to the wife of a serving soldier and to the dependants. I should like to indicate the general background against which the point arises. It is common knowledge that members of the Forces get a qualifying allotment which is increased by allowances from the Government. The total amount is paid to the dependants and to the wife. There is, however, a distinction in that the wife gets the allowance as a right, while the dependants get the allowance only as the result of a means test. The first allowance that the dependants get is already means-tested before the war service grant is


considered. If the grant is inadequate, there is a war service grant. I want to draw the attention of the House to-day to the methods of calculating this war service grant.
The purpose of the war service grant is to provide for a minimum standard of existence in the household after all other commitments, outside commitments, have been met. It will be recollected that after the passage of the Determination of Needs Act an announcement was made that this new method of assessing resources in the household would apply in the calculation of war service grants. At first it applied equally to wives of serving men and to dependants of serving men. Then, in order to induce a large number of these wives of soldiers to enter industry, a new announcement was made. The effect of that announcement was that in calculating the war service grant in the case of a childless wife the first 15s. of earnings would be ignored, and in the case of a wife with children the first £1 of the earnings there might be out of this war-time industry would be ignored. It was generally understood that when this disregard was established on war-time earnings it would apply equally to the wholly dependent widow or the unmarried mother as it would to the wife of a serving soldier. But as time went on it became evident that this disregard would not apply to the dependants, and that a wholly dependent widowed mother would be penalised if she went into war-time industry, whereas a wife was encouraged and rewarded. On 29th November last year I put a Question down for non-oral reply to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions. On 16th December the Parliamentary Secretary replied:
This matter is receiving further consideration." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1942; col. 1958, Vol. 385.]
So, after the Christmas Recess, the Question was again put down, and I should like to quote the Question and the supplementary question, and the answers that' were given by the Parliamentary Secretary. I quote from the Official Report of 4th February of this year. This is the Question: The Minister of Pensions was asked:
whether the first £1 of earnings, which is ignored in the case of the wife of a serving man for the purpose of calculating any war-service grant that may be due, also applies

in the case of a widowed mother who was wholly dependent upon her serving son?
Here is the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary:
This matter has been carefully considered, but I am unable to add anything to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to a similar question on 10th December last.
Then there was the supplementary question:
Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the announcement was made that the first £1 of earnings for the purpose of calculating war service grant would be disregarded in the case of wives of serving men? Why cannot a dependent mother have the same disregard?
The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
The reply was given in the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1943; col. 1037, Vol. 386.]
My hon. Friend was again pressed, and he read the reply that had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he said:
The disregard of the first 15s. or 20s. of wives for war service grants purposes was approved in order to provide a special inducement to the wives of serving men to undertake paid employment assisting the war effort. The information at present at my disposal does not lead me to think that the present rule operates to deter dependants other than wives from accepting employment assisting the war effort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1942, col. 1707, Vol. 385.]
That was the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer behind which my hon. Friend is apparently hiding. This reply suggests one or two other interesting points. First of all, might I ask by whom the further consideration was given to this problem? Was it a responsibility of the Department in which my hon. Friend serves? Was it an independent decision of the Ministry of Pensions, whose virtues the Minister proclaims so loudly? There is another point in this matter: If this is not a decision of my hon. Friend's Department—and I take it that he is going to reply to what may be said on this side of the House—might I ask him not to become the whipping boy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter? It is no use his standing between us and those who may be responsible for this decision, that is, if he is not responsible. As I understand that the administration of war service grants is largely in the hands of my hon. Friend, perhaps he will give some attention to that question.
The second point is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not attempt to justify this discrimination on the grounds of equity. He says that the present rule does not deter dependants other than wives from accepting employment. Why is that? I suppose it is because the income going into the household, even the ordinary allowance, is determined as a result of a means test, and the application of that means test itself is sufficient to drive these older women into industry without inducement such as we offered to the younger wives of the men in the Forces. It is on the ground of pure expediency; there is no attempt to be just, there is no attempt to be equitable. This discrimination is made merely because the result is achieved, although by an unjust method. My hon. Friend now has to operate that unjust method. I want to ask my hon. Friend, who built his reputation in this House on a vehement defence of those who were unjustly treated, whether he is going to justify this discrimination. Is he going to face up to all the speeches he has made in the past? In fact, I was tempted to resurrect ghosts of the past. I was tempted to quote some of his speeches. I am satisfied he would recognise the ghosts, but I am not so certain that the ghosts would recognise him. He seems to have changed his role in this House, and I ask him to give some consideration to the reputation he rightly established on matters of this sort.
Let me give an example of the effect of this discrimination with regard to our womenfolk. I have in my constituency three women. One is the wife of a soldier. Another is an unmarried mother, whose son was born in the last war; his father had never lived up to his obligations, and she has reared that boy, run her own home and after that terrible trial and hardship her son is in the Army. I have a widow whose son also is in the Army. The three women were wholly dependent, in two cases, on the earnings of their sons and in the case of the wife on the earnings of her husband. The three live in the same street, pay the same rent and are, by and large, under precisely similar conditions, with, roughly speaking, precisely similar commitments. The three were getting 25s. Army allowance. The

rent in the three cases is 10s. 6d. and the war service grant would be the same in each case.
What happens? There is a demand that these women should go into employment. The Minister of Labour puts out attractive posters inviting these women to help the country in its hour of need. The three women are able to get employment, and for the purpose of my example I assume that the earnings in the three cases, in part-time employment, are 15s. a week. The soldier's wife retains her Army allowance and her war service grant, and she has her 15s. a week of earnings. The unmarried mother loses her war service grant, she loses her Army allowance and retains only the direct contribution from her son. The widow loses her war service grant, and she loses her Army allowance. She merely has the allotment which her son has made to her. There are three women, as I say, in precisely similar circumstances and with the same financial commitments, and you treat two of them as if they were dirt, and reward the other—and invariably in these cases the other woman is years younger than those who are so badly treated. The result is that the wife gets a total income of 45s., the unmarried mother gets an income of 25s. 6d. and the dependent widowed mother gets an income of 25s. 6d.
Why discriminate between these women? This is a new feature in the application of the determination of need tests. It is a new feature in our whole structure of social assistance. Here are needs precisely the same, earnings precisely the same, commitments precisely the same, and you give one 19s. 6d. more than the other two, from State funds. I submit that that cannot be justified by the Department. May I put this point? There is no discrimination of this type in unemployment benefit; there is no discrimination in unemployment assistance; there is no discrimination in supplementary pensions. Yet the three things come under the same Determination of Needs Act. I submit that the Chancellor is not entitled—if the Chancellor is responsible—to achieve an end which is desirable, by a method which imposes injustice upon hundreds of thousands of women in this country.
I have put my case, and I want to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary two questions: First, whether he and his Minister—the Minister who has made this House aware of his virtue so frequently—justify this discrimination. In the second place, I would ask them whether they are responsible, and if they are not responsible, who is? I think we ought to give an indication that we propose to follow this matter to whatever Department or Departments may be responsible for it, and to raise it again, in order that we may get a square deal, especially for the older women in this country. I ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to the respective committees, in which these matters may be decided, the strong feelings which some of us have on the present position.

Mr. John Dugdale: I wish to raise two comparatively small questions, though they are not small to the people concerned. The first is the question of medical treatment for dependants of serving men. At present there is no allowance for such treatment unless the dependants are willing to go before the appropriate authorities and prove that they are in need, in the ordinary way, as is done in normal circumstances. There is a very strong feeling about this matter, not among Members of Parliament on one side only, but among Members of Parliament generally, and not only among Members of Parliament generally, but among members of the medical profession. I do not know whether the Minister has seen a report of a recent conference of the British Medical Association, in which one speaker referred to the dependants of serving men, in this connection, as a "new depressed class." So strong is this feeling that it has been expressed in the most drastic and effective way possible, many doctors have actually waived their fees and given free treatment in case after case. There are numbers of cases in my own constituency and near it where doctors are willing to give treatment free to dependants of serving men because they know that these people cannot possibly afford to pay for the treatment, and they do not feel able, in fairness, to ask them to pay anything at all. At present the doctors are paying for something for which they and many other people feel the Minister ought to pay.
What is the reason given by the Government for taking no action in this matter? I understand the first reason is that they cannot separate the particular question of medical treatment for the dependants of serving men from the question of free medical treatment generally. They say that this can only be dealt with as a general question, and that the question of a free medical service in general is much too large to be dealt with at this precise moment. I ask, why cannot the two questions be separated? After all, the position of the dependants of serving men is entirely separate, their whole system of allowances is quite different from that of ordinary wage-earners in industry, and I cannot see why a differentiation cannot be made in this matter between the dependants of serving men who require medical treatment and other people, workers in industry, who also require medical treatment.
My second point relates to the cases of men who are invalided out of the Army. I understand that such men are given one month's pay. In many cases that will help them up to a certain point, but there are many men for whom it is not enough. They are invalided out of the Service, and they are still in need of medical treatment. Very often they have to pay for that treatment. T.B. cases are a particularly bad example. Men suffering from this disease have to go on receiving medical treatment for months, it may even be for years, after they have left the Forces, but they get no contribution from the Ministry of Pensions towards the cost. But T.B. cases are not the only ones. There was a case in my division of a man who had 15 months' convalescence after leaving the Army, and during that time he received no free medical treatment. Not only had he to pay for treatment, but he had also to pay for his keep. Eventually he had to go to the public assistance committee. I submit that a man who has served in the Forces should not have to go to a public assistance committee because he is unfit and the Ministry have made no arrangements for him to get any medical allowance. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider both the dependants of the serving men who receive medical treatment, and the serving men themselves who are discharged and who are still in need of medical treatment. I hope that, having considered those matters, he will


be able to inform us that he is taking some action.

Mr. Collindridge: My hon. Friend who initiated this discussion has performed a service to the House and to the country by the splendid way in which he put before us the case of the womenfolk of the serving men. I feel that besides the womenfolk who are suffering, we should consider the children of serving men, who obtain grants and then are at a disadvantage when they go into industry. I know of quite a number of cases in my division of girls who go into industry and their mothers then lose their war service grants. I share my hon. Friend's view that when wives or mothers are working it is wrong to take away a large portion of their grants. Very often the expenses which they incur in order to earn their wages are considerable, and they are at a great disadvantage when they are deprived of their grants. I would also refer to the position which arises when a man is killed in the Services and the war service grant to his dependants ceases. There should be, I feel, a longer continuance of the grant when men are invalided from the Services. I would join in asking the Minister to tell us whether there is in the Cabinet some influence at work compelling his Department to mete out this bad treatment to Service people. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions has a vocal reputation in the country of desiring to see the Service men and their dependants properly treated.
Could we be told whether the inquiries made by the Assistance Board take place as a result of suggestions made by the Ministry of Pensions? In my division I known of a widow whose only boy was called up for service. He was the only breadwinner and the only other occupant of the house, but the Assistance Board decided that this widowed lady's distress was not a consequence of the war. Surely when we take the only breadwinner in the household to War that must be considered to have caused distress. I wonder whether that decision arose out of the suggestion from the Department, or whether it was entirely the decision of the Assistance Board. I want to stress the position which arises when the dependants of serving men lose their menfolk in the Forces. Nothing dis-

turbs the minds of not only the parties themselves, but also the public, more than does the unfair loss of the war service grant in such cases. I have had details of a case sent to me only this morning. A lady writes to tell me that her husband was formerly working in Scotland as a chauffeur. When he went on service his employers, who lived in a castle in Scotland, shame to them I think, took steps immediately to have his wife ejected from the cottage they occupied on the estate. She had to reside with her father in my division for a time. When she eventually got a house she had to pay a much higher rent than she had formerly paid. She applied for a war service grant, and the officer of the Board said that she had no right to leave Scotland and come to live in the Barnsley district. He went on to say that, because of her living first with her father and then getting a house in the district, she had, in his own language, "not a smell of a chance" of any war service grant.
Surely the Ministry should either suggest to the Assistance Board that they should alter their tactics or it should totally disclaim responsibility for the Board, so that we could direct our criticisms in this House against the Board itself. I hope that the Department will take note of these things. In the case of children starting work nothing like the full amount of their earnings should be taken into account, because of the charges they incur at the commencement of their going into industry, which are fairly heavy, and in the case of wives who are working and helping the country, they should be assisted and encouraged more than they are at present. Also, when the man in the Forces is killed in the service of the country, the war service grant which is paid to his dependants should continue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurances on these points.

Mr. Bellenger: I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has just come into the Chamber. It is a pity that a representative from his Department was not here to listen to some of the remarks that have been made particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale). It is unfortunate, but true nevertheless, that there is some dual control of administration on some of those extras which the Service man or his de-


pendants may get. The Ministry of Pensions is responsible entirely for the administration of war service grants, and I think that that could be improved. Though it has not been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), I think that the 18s. basis is too low. It was recently increased from a 16s. to an 18s. basis, but the Minister and probably his Parliamentary Secretary know that the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association thought it ought to be at least 20s. This matter should seriously be looked into to see whether it can be improved.
Reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge) to the sudden cessation of the war service grant in the event of the death of the soldier. Actually what happens is that the Ministry of Pensions continue the war service grant as long as the allowances are continued to the dependant, or the soldier's wife, by the War Office, which is 13 weeks. Then immediately the curtain comes down, and although the widow has her continuing liabilities for which she was originally able to get the war service grant, all she gets is a pension of 25s. or 17s. 6d. a week if her late husband was a private soldier. While the husband was alive she was getting allowances as a married woman, and probably the war service grant, and all of a sudden, because the man has given his life for his country, she gets the bare rate of pension and no more. That is not entirely a matter for the Ministry of Pensions, but it is a matter for the Government. There ought to be more co-ordination between the Ministry of Pensions and the Service Departments. You get Service dependants' allowances being administered by Service Departments, and the war service grant, another form of subsidy to the dependent wife or mother or other relation of the Service man, administered by the Ministry of Pensions. There are occasions where the Service Departments refuse to grant dependant's allowance, and the Ministry of Pensions can, if conditions warrant it, give a war service grant. Although there are no representatives at all from the Service Departments here—and they ought to have been here to hear the case put by my hon. Friends—this is a matter which the Minister ought to bring prominently to their notice. If he does not

do it, I am afraid the House will have to do it themselves.
The other matter referred to by my hon. Friend about free medical treatment for dependants of Service men does not, I think, come within the province of the Ministry of Pensions. Probably it would be a matter either for the Service Departments or the Ministry of Health, but it is a matter of substance. We do our best to get the fighting men fighting fit. The Service Departments spend large sums of money in order to ensure that the man is fit to face the enemy, and he may die in the battle. What do we do for his dependants—his wife and children? Very little, I am afraid. We do not look after the dependants of these Service men in the same way that we look after the Service men themselves in the medical service given to them in the Forces. My hon. Friend is right in saying that this is a matter to which the Government must pay attention. I only rose to call attention to these points. I have great sympathy with the points of view put by my hon. Friends. Probably the cases which they have put are very intricate, and I have no doubt that the Minister will reply in that respect, but there are these linked-up questions which ought to be looked into at a very early date.

Mr. Hutchinson: I intervene in this Debate for the purpose of making a few short observations upon two matters to which some reference has already been made. I happen to represent a constituency in which we have a very large proportion of Service families in receipt of war service grants. As my hon. Friend the Membert for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has just reminded the House, the unit basis for service grants was increased a short time ago from 16s. to 18s. The House welcomed that increase, and certainly those of us who represent a large number of Service families in respect of grants welcomed it very warmly indeed. Since then I have been endeavouring to ascertain to what extent the position of the families affected has been improved by the increase from 16s. to 18s. To some extent the advantage which they received from the increase in the children's allowances has been lost, because, in certain circumstances, it has involved a reduction in the war service grant which has offset the advantage that the family would otherwise have received from the increase in the family allowances.
As far as my information goes, there has been an improvement, but it is also the case, as hon. Members have already pointed out, that the main difficulty which the Service family has to encounter under the present conditions arises when exceptional expenses, such as medical treatment or dental treatment, have been incurred. I am satisfied from what I have seen in my own division, as well as from what I have been told, that although there has been some benefit from the increase in the amount of the unit basis, the position where special expenses have to be incurred by the family for medical and dental benefit and so forth is still very unsatisfactory. I would invite my right hon. Friend to consider whether in those circumstances at any rate some additional assistance should not be given to the Service Dependants for the purpose of meeting exceptional expenses of this nature. I am satisfied that there is a considerable measure of hardship in cases where those circumstances arise.
The other point to which I desire to draw attention is the position of the widow who has been in receipt of a war service grant when her husband loses his life and she passes, at the end of the 13 weeks' period during which she remains in receipt of the family allowance and the war service grant, to the flat-rate pension scale. I have drawn the attention of my right hon. Friend to this matter before, but hitherto without any great measure of success. Therefore I desire to point out to him again that in those districts where the average rent level is high, as it is in all the districts of the Greater London area, there is a very great change in the family income when the family passes from the family allowance scale, with the war service grant, to the flat-rate pension scale. It may be—I do not know, as I have no experience—that the flat-rate scale in areas where the average rent level is lower than in Greater London is satisfactory. In the last Debate which took place in this House on this subject I gathered from speeches which were made on both sides of the House that that was probably the case. But it is certainly the case that in the areas where the level of average rents is high the flat-rate scale is insufficient. Flat-rate scales for pensions are frequently justified upon the ground that it is, after all, open to the pensioner to leave the neighbourhood where he was

formerly living and take up his residence in a place where the rent level is lower. But that consideration does not apply to war widows. First of all, there is the great difficulty in getting accommodation. If the war widow leaves the area where she has been accustomed to live, it is almost certain that she will fail in her attempt to find cheaper accommodation elsewhere. There is a further consideration, which is an even stronger consideration. It is not fair to expect a woman who has made her home in a certain place, very often in the area where her relatives reside, when she loses her husband, to leave that neighbourhood and endeavour to obtain accommodation elsewhere.
I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be possible for him to continue something in the nature of a war service grant to the widow who was in receipt of the war service grant at the time when her husband became a casualty. I can understand the reluctance of my right hon. Friend to revise his flat-rate pension scale at present. It is not very long since the scale was reviewed. But I do invite him to consider this alternative. If it was possible to issue something in the nature of a war service grant after the death of the husband, it would go a very long way to meet one of the principal hardships which is arising in the higher rented districts under the present system of flat-rate scales.
On the last occasion when my right hon. Friend was invited to consider this matter—I think my recollection is right in this—he stated that he was waiting until some evidence was forthcoming that hardship had arisen. If that is the case, I can furnish the Minister with evidence of that nature, and, if evidence is now forthcoming, I would invite him to give us an assurance that, if, in fact, these cases are giving rise to hardship in the Greater London area, he will give this matter of the extension of the war service grant his careful consideration.

Mr. Buchanan: The matter which has been raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) is one upon which we are mostly agreed and really needs little support from anybody in this House. The position is reinforced by the recent decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in his recent Budget, decided to bring within


the scope of allowances a similar set of people to those for whom the hon. Member is making a claim to-day. That was done only last week. Now it is admitted that that class of case should qualify for tax exemption in the same ratio as the worker, and the claim to-day made by my hon. Friend is similar in substance to what the Chancellor has already conceived for tax purposes. I have considerable sympathy with the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson). The hardship of moving people who have lived in decent surroundings to places not so decent is a real one. I represent a much different type of division from that which the hon. and learned Member represents and I welcome the opportunity which people from my division have to go to better suroundings. Nobody wants to reverse that process.
On this matter of hardship, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) struck the main issue. I think this question of the 18s. unit ought to be looked at again, because it is impossible in these days for human beings to maintain themselves in decency and comfort, when prices are soaring, and especially when they are living in districts where other people are earning comparatively big wages and where it is almost impossible to get anything but the barest of controlled necessities. The hon. and learned Member for Ilford also raised the question of sickness. I know that the Ministry have power to meet bills of £2 and over, but I do not think you will often find a person running up a bill merely for the sake of it, just because it will be paid. So, frequently, the bill stops at, say, £1 14s., £1 15s., or £1 17s., and because of that people are penalised. The limit of £2 is too high. It is easy for a doctor to run up a bill if he is that type of man, although I think the medical profession have a very creditable record in public life, and I do not think many of its members like to do that kind of thing. I know that when sums of 2s. 6d. and 5s. are involved administration would be very difficult, but I think the Minister ought to look again at the £2 limit and see whether it is not possible to reduce the level or make it more flexible. Do not make the £2 an arbitrary figure. If a person can show that the bill would have run to £2 or over if he had wished to force

the matter then the Minister ought to have power to meet the bill if it is less than £2.
In administering hardship grants, the Minister takes account of commitments entered into before a certain date. That is to say, if a man is married——

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lord's Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. National Loans Act, 1943.
2. British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1943.
3. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1943.
4. Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1943.
5. Nurses Act, 1943.
6. Evidence and Powers of Attorney Act, 1943.
7. Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1943.
8. Liverpool Hydraulic Power Act, 1943.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Mr. Buchanan: The point I was coming to was the hardship grant where a commitment for the purchase of furniture was entered into before the man joined His Majesty's Forces. I take it that the wife of a soldier ought to have access to improved housing accommodation as much as any other section of the community. They can only have that access if they can pay the rent, which is usually higher than the house they have left, and can furnish it. I ask the Minister not to confine the grant to pre-enlistment commitments.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): It is generally the fact that a hire purchase agreement made before the serving man went into the Forces is met, and where a marriage takes place or a child is born and a new house has to be set up, we can do things, but, generally speaking, on the case my hon. Friend has put, we do not.

Mr. Buchanan: I have a case of a serving man and four children who were living in a single apartment. It is desirable that they should move out. My feeling is that in that case it should be met.

Mr. Paling: We do not meet it now, and I cannot promise that we will, but I will consider the point. With regard to medical attention, provision was made in the war service grant some considerable time ago. My right hon. Friend felt that there was a lack in this regard and that in the case of illness in the Service man's family there might be reluctance to bring in a doctor because of the bill that would follow. We have met that to the extent that in the case of serious and prolonged illness we will meet bills of over £2 up to a maximum of £10. That has been done in a good many thousands of cases and has proved of very great help indeed. We do not meet bills under £2, and I can well believe that in some cases that is a hardship. We have had it under discussion, but have not been able to do anything about it up to the moment. We felt we had to put some figure down in order to avoid getting in perhaps thousands of very small amounts which would make more administrative difficulties than they were worth. Whether £2 is the correct figure or not I admit is open to argument. I will look into that also. That meets to some extent the case of the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale).
As to his second point, I doubt whether it has anything to do with us. I think that would be for another Department. It has been said that the 18s. minimum is not enough. That may be, but one of the troubles I met with when I went into the Department was that there was no minimum whatever. We laid down a minimum of 16s., which was later raised to 18s. It does not mean that 18s. is the most that anyone is getting. It is the amount that we make up to if the standard of life unit figure has been below that. It is only a minimum, and only a certain number are confined to that figure. Most will be above it. Further, it is after certain commitments have been paid—hire purchase, insurance, education grants and various others—so that this is no mean figure. We sought power to make a minimum so as to bring in large numbers of people, and tens of thousands came in

because of that, and it has proved of inestimable service to them. The hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) referred to the effect of the children's allowance being taken into account in our calculation of the income of a family.

Mr. Hutchinson: My point was that in many cases families have not benefited from the increased family allowance.

Mr. Paling: To some extent that may be so, but where the war service grant may have been reduced it does not follow that that is because of the increased children's allowance being taken into account. It may be because of an increased income in the family through a dozen different matters. The question of the war service grant to the widow of a soldier who has been killed is a very important matter. It was stated a month ago that it was to be brought before the Central Advisory Committee, and I was asked how long it would be before it met. It has met, and the matter has already been discussed, but it involves so many issues that I am afraid some time must elapse before we can reach a conclusion. A long discussion was held, but it was not possible to reach a conclusion on such an important matter with all its ramifications. It is being considered in the light of the discussion that took place on that day and of things that have been said since.

Mr. McNeil: Will my hon. Friend explain exactly what are the difficulties? It is surely a very simple matter.

Mr. Paling: There are so many details that I cannot go into them all now, but it is not half as simple as it looks. There are a score of things that have to be taken into consideration. In any event, simple or not, a promise was given that it would be considered, and it is being considered, and when a conclusion is reached it will be conveyed to the House.
With regard to the main question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), I should like to explain the history of the present arrangements and the reasons which have led the Government to adopt them in their present form. Some months ago it was suggested that there were among the wives of serving men a substantial number who were available for work of


national importance but were discouraged from undertaking it, particularly if they undertook part-time work, because the net financial benefit to them was small as a reduction in the war service grant was commonly made if they became wage-earners. It should be mentioned in this connection that so far as wives are concerned, the regulated family allowances paid by the Service Departments are in no way conditional on other income, and the question could be looked at solely as a war service grant problem. In other words, this applies to wives, and the introduction of the disregard of the 15s. or the £1, as the case may be, was a simple administrative matter because it was related to our Department. Whether the wife earned or not did not make any alteration to her allotment or allowance from the Service in which her husband was engaged. There was that difference between the wife and the dependant. It became a simple matter for us to deal with administratively and did not affect any other Department.

Mr. Ness Edwards: My hon. Friend says it would not interfere with the wife's allowance administratively, but surely in the administration of war service grants income of any sort does come in under his administration and does interfere with it. How can my hon. Friend make out that an income which interferes with the dependant's allowance does not interfere with the war service grant?

Mr. Paling: I am making the simple point that the wife receives her allowance from whatever Service her husband is in as a right, and if she goes to work or earns any other money that does not affect the allowance but it does affect the war service grant. A dependant is in a different position. She gets an allowance from the Service in which her ton is on the basis of need. Anything that she earns is, therefore, taken into account by the Service concerned. So that in the case of a dependant more than the war service grant administration is concerned but in the case of the wife, where the 15s. or £1 comes into play, only our Department is concerned administratively.
It was, however, represented by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that a departure from the existing rule in the case of wives of serving men would

be likely to result in a real and appreciable contribution to the woman-power directly available for the war effort. Having regard to the urgency of the need at this time to make the greatest possible use of the nation's resources of man and woman-power we came to the conclusion that we should be justified in this particular class of case in adopting exceptional measures. It was accordingly agreed that there would be a disregard in the calculation of means for the purpose of a war service grant of the first 15s. or 20s. of the earnings of the wife of a serving man We considered at the same time whether the special arrangement should be extended to the dependants of those wives of serving men in receipt of war service grants or of dependants' allowances. Although there are differences of detail of application, in essence the basis underlying the assessment of the allowances payable in the case of dependants is primarily that of need and the income of the dependants is, therefore, a material consideration. We found no evidence to show that a disregard of earnings in the case of dependants similar to that in the case of wives of serving men would result in a material increase in the woman-power engaged in work of national importance. A very large proportion of the recipients of dependants' allowances are advanced in years. They might well be only too desirous of furthering the war effort but were prevented from doing so by age, infirmity or immobility. It could not therefore be said that there would be a substantial benefit to the national effort which would justify the adoption of an arrangement which would be counter to the fundamental principle underlying the assessment of the allowances payable to these dependants.
In these circumstances, as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to a Question on 10th December last, we decided to limit the special concession to the wives of serving men. With regard to the pool of labour concerned, the total number of advances in payment is about 490,000. Of these, dependants' cases represent about 10 per cent. It was hoped to secure for industry from those drawing war service grants about 50,000 women. No statistics are available of the numbers actually obtained, but numbers of cases are coming along in which the disregard is of value. The average age of dependants is 55. Only 5 per cent. of


dependants in receipt of war service grants are in employment. There is little likelihood of this figure being increased. Of those who are working part time over one-half are in some kind of domestic service. The main point about this was getting women, particularly young women, into industry where they are vitally needed. In order to get them in it was felt that the disregard of the war service grant of the 15s. or £1 would help them to come in. It meant running away from the principle upon which the war service grant was based, and that was an important matter to take into consideration. It could only be done if the result to be achieved was important enough. We are told that in the case of the wives, among whom there was a huge pool of labour, it was worth doing in order to encourage them to go to work. Among dependants the pool of labour is very small as compared with that of wives, for the average age is 55 and a good many of them are in domestic service. That being so, together with the other fact which I have already mentioned of this not being a case confined to us in its administration, but being a case which affects all the Services in the case of dependants, it was felt that we should do this in regard to wives in order to get the huge amount of labour that was available, and, as the pool of labour was not available among the dependants, it was not extended to them. My hon. Friend has made out a good case, as he always does. He referred on a good many occasions to injustice. In the case that he gave of two people working side by side there does appear to be injustice, and I admit the difference in the treatment of a wife and a dependant. I would like to point out, however, that the hardship or the injustice that may have been there before has been dealt with by the issue of a war service grant——

Mr. Ness Edwards: In the case of the wife.

Mr. Paling: In the case of everybody. The initial injustice which the war service grant was intended to remedy has been remedied in the cases both of the wife and the dependant. If injustice or hardship exists it is merely because the wife can go into industry and the other cannot.

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend has played about with the average age of 55.

Does he not recognise that there are hundreds of dependants of soldiers who are younger than the wives of soldiers and that you will get in the same factory a dependent woman at a lower age than the wife of a soldier who is treated entirely differently?

Mr. Paling: Is my hon. Friend trying to prove that the average age of a dependant is less than that of a wife?

Mr. Edwards: No, but you cannot cover up this injustice by a lot of figures.

Mr. Paling: If the average age is 55, that means that some must be under and some over that age. I am not saying that some dependants are not younger. I have explained why and how this has been done. There was a huge pool of labour in one case and in the other case there was not. In the case of dependants other Departments were affected besides our own, and it is not the simple issue that it is in the case of wives. Although there may be some injustice in this difference of treatment, the fact remains that we have had very few complaints about it. The hon. Member has mentioned one or two, but I have made extensive inquiries and my information is that the complaints we have had in the Department are very few indeed.

Mr. Mathers: I want to make a brief comment upon the important statement that has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am glad that the House has had these considerations put before it. Those of us who are pressing for improvements in certain directions feel that the point of view we are advancing has been assisted by the Parliamentary Secretary's statement. He has clearly shown that in order to meet the problem of woman-power the strict principle that was applied to the war service grant has been set aside. If in order to get an advantage to the nation a principle can be sacrificed, we are entitled to claim that the principle which lays it down that a war service grant or its equivalent can only apply while the husband is alive, can be sacrificed in order to do justice to the widow, who has been in receipt of a grant, after her husband has lost his life. I therefore look forward more hopefully than ever to the consideration that is being given by the Minister to this point which a number of friends and myself have been pressing upon his notice for a long time.

Mr. McNeil: I would like in a few sentences to emphasise what has just been said. I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary has demonstrated here more than once that there is not a great volume of cases falling into the category which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) has been discussing, but you do not measure justice in terms of numbers. A hard case, wherever it occurs, causes the gravest hardship. If a wife is unable to continue to meet certain obligations she must just slip back. As the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said, it frequently means going from a good house to a poorer house, and dropping from one standard of living to another. If this can be prevented by continuing these particular grants until the liability is liquidated I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary should be deterred from taking that step by whatever administrative difficulties there may be. All hon. Members on this side of the House are very happy to say that whenever they have to go to the Parliamentary Secretary with an appeal they find him most co-operative and most understanding, and I very gladly say that is also my experience, but I plead with him not to be deterred by the Departmental hurdles that may be put up. This is a straight matter of justice, and whatever arguments there may be about difficulties in terms of logic or equity they cannot meet the situation. I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to give the House an assurance as soon as possible this simple proposition will be accepted—that the war service grant, even when the Service man is killed, should be continued until the household's liabilities are liquidated.

ARMY CHAPLAINS (PAY)

Dr. Russell Thomas: In raising the matter of the pay of chaplains in the Army perhaps I may read a Question on this matter which I put to the Secretary of State for War on 2nd February last. I asked the Secretary of State for War:
if he will state the daily rate of pay, after three years' service, of a fourth class chaplain who holds the rank of captain.
The Secretary of State replied:
The pay of a chaplain to the Forces, fourth class, who is holding a temporary or emergency commission is 15s. 4d. a day, irrespective of length of his service.

I repeat that sentence, "irrespective of the length of his service."
On his selection for a permanent commission his pay would be 19s. a day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1943; col. 735, Vol. 386.]
I would ask the House to remember that, because the impression conveyed might possibly be that it might not be very long until the chaplain was promoted and that his pay would then increase. Now there are one or two points I wish to put on the question of pay. Chaplains who joined the Army before August, 1939, of whom there must be a very limited number, receive 16s. 6d. per day. A temporary chaplain, as the Secretary of State said, receives only 15s. 4d. A recently promoted captain in the Army receives, I think, about 17s. 6d. a day, although I admit that he starts as a second lieutenant at a lower rate than a chaplain. As a second lieutenant he gets 14s. 6d., but he is very soon promoted, I think after a matter of months, and then his pay is increased. Frequently, too, he soon becomes a captain, and after three years' service as a captain he gets an increase of 1s. 3d. a day. Those are a few points with regard to the pay which officers receive.
Next I should like to turn the attention of the House to the age of the Army chaplain as compared with that of the ordinary officer in the Army. I am not suggesting that there are not older officers, but on the whole, I think, the Army chaplain is considerably older than the average officer. I understand, and I hope that I may be corrected if I am wrong, that chaplains are not accepted before the age of 25; most of them, I believe, are well over 35, and many of them older still. They are men who have had considerable training. They are members of a learned profession. Many of them have been educated at the universities of Cambridge or Oxford, and after that they have received a course at a theological college. Others have gone straight away to theological colleges. In addition to that they have, as it were, put in an apprenticeship to their work. Most of them having served as curates for two, three, four or five years, positions in which they are frequently underpaid, because of the economic stress of the church, but they were willing to accept that low pay on account of the high nature of their calling.
It has been said to me—I mention this very diffidently, and the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that the War Office originally averaged the pay of a certain number of curates and upon that average decided the rate of 15s. 4d. a day for a chaplain. I cannot vouch for this. But it suggests to me that the War Office was to some extent taking advantage of the bad economic conditions of the Church, perhaps—I hope not—making use of them in that way. We must remember that the ordinary curate is frequently supported by public contributions and willingly forgoes the luxuries of this world. Many chaplains, being older than the average officer, are married and often have two, three or four children. They occupy country vicarages and rectories and have considerable responsibilities, and yet the allowances to them are on the same scale as for the average officer, and owing to their lower pay they are unable to send money home to help their families. I have already pointed out that the Secretary of State said that chaplains receive 19s. a day on promotion, but in point of fact the hope of promotion for a temporary chaplain who has served already for three years is extremely remote. Promotion to third class chaplains, who rank as majors, is extremely rare, and appointments as divisional chaplain go as a rule to those who joined the Service before war broke out. Therefore I think the possibility of a young chaplain obtaining the extra pay referred to is very small.
An Army chaplain's duties are very considerable. Not only has he to perform his normal duties as a minister of religion, but he has also to move about the camp in a social sense, giving advice and guidance to young men, and this involves him in further expenses. He cannot do that work without spending a certain amount of money, it may be on buying cups of tea or coffee. At the same time he has to contribute to the officers' mess in the same way as an ordinary officer. There is no doubt that all this makes a considerable call on his pay and leaves him with but little margin of money to send home if he desires to do so.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Supposing he had neither silver nor gold nor brass in his purse and only one coat and

no scrip and no shoes, would he not be at a hopeless disadvantage?

Dr. Thomas: I often listen to the hon. Member, and if he will listen to my argument, he will realise that the Army chaplain is not claiming something for his own benefit but asking that the State, which appoints him, should have a little more consideration for his family. I shall read in a moment a letter from an Army chaplain in which he shows that he has no desires for himself. Therefore perhaps my hon. Friend will not interrupt me further, and I will proceed to develop my points. The work of the Army chaplain is steadily increasing. Owing to the shortage of chaplains in the Army, the chaplain frequently has to attend to regiments besides his own. He has his daily duties as a padre to give religious instruction, and there is other work, and I know in fact that chaplains have very little time to themselves—those at least who take their duties earnestly, and I believe that is the case with the majority of Army chaplains.
Let me compare the pay of the Army chaplain with that of the Army doctor. I do so very diffidently, and I am trying in no way to prejudice the claims of doctors. I am not saying that they are receiving a fraction too much, but I want to compare one learned profession with another. The Army doctor is often a young man who has left hospital only about six months. He is paid 19s. 6d. a day when he is commissioned as a lieutenant. He is very quickly, within some 18 months, promoted to the rank of captain, and then receives 24s. 6d. a day, and after that he is in many cases rapidly promoted to the rank of major. That is a very unfavourable comparison. Although the Army doctor, when the regiment is on active service and suffering from attrition due to the enemy's attack, can be extremely busy, in fact overwhelmed with work, under ordinary conditions, I believe, his work is fairly light. He has his sick parades in the morning, and attends to any emergency conditions which may arise, such as accidents; in fact, his work is not arduous unless the unit to which he belongs is actually in action. It can be argued by the Financial Secretary that the Army chaplain is very much in the same position as anybody who is taken into the Army out of good employment at home. He may say that


anybody is now liable to be called up for military service and may have to give up very lucrative employment and be placed in the ranks. I would ask him to remember that such a man is not responsible for mess charges if he does not hold the position of an officer, and if in fact he has been in a position of some status in private life he will probably, if he shows ability, soon be promoted to be an officer and his pay and conditions will improve. At this juncture I will read a letter which I hope will satisfy the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) and show him that Army chaplains are moved with the noble ideas which were formulated to us so long ago, in the days of "staff and scrip" to which he referred. I will read a portion of the letter.
I do not want you to think that I am discontented or unhappy with my work in the Army. Never have I had such great opportunities or been more happy, or had my work more appreciated; but I do feel that, in the matter of pay and promotion, chaplains are not getting a fair deal, considering the work that they are expected to do among the troops. Many other chaplains, I know, feel just the same, Nor is it that I personally want promotion; because I feel the chaplains should not wear any badges of rank at all; but I will give particulars of myself so that you may have definite data to work upon. I am 37, and have been married 12 years and have four children. I shall very soon have completed three years' service in the Army. My pay is 15s. 4d. a day, and the family allowance for my wife and children is 10s. 6d. a day. All my children are at school, the two eldest at boarding school, and one has already started at a prep, school before I joined up. My wife has to keep her home going, and but for the fact that she has worked very hard at home, and also in part-time work outside and has relations and friends who have helped her financially we should never have been able to manage. Other chaplains who have spoken to me agree with me that we ought to be eligible for increase of pay after three years service, and that promotion to third class chaplain should be possible as a recognition of service, and experience of the chaplain's work in the army.
I do not think it is an unreasonable request that he is making, and I am certain he is making it not because of himself but because of his wife and children.

Mr. Hopkinson: I hope my hon. Friend will not do me the injustice of suggesting that I think that these unfortunate men should be treated unfairly, but on the question of promotion does not my hon. Friend think that the chaplains might very well wait until the Ruler says, "Friend, go up higher"?

Dr. Thomas: Perhaps, indeed, it is the Ruler who has guided me to undertake this task on their behalf to-day. These men had a splendid record in the last war. Some of them deliberately broke the rules, following the example of Bishop Talbot, and went out into no man's land to bring the wounded away, at considerable sacrifice to themselves. They have proved themselves willing to lay down their lives for their friends. I have here a notification of a certain chaplain who was lately a country vicar and who was awarded the M.C. for gallantry during the campaign from El Alamein to Tripoli, and the citation says that the medal was awarded for his work in rescuing the wounded under intense machine-gun fire and restoring confidence in the men after the enemy had destroyed the regimental first-aid post, killing and wounding many of our soldiers. That is an example of what has probably occurred many times in this war and occurred hundreds of times in the last war.
I think I have made my main points. These chaplains are drawn from many denominations, some from the Anglican Communion, some from the Free Church ministries, some from the priesthood of the Roman faith, but when they work among our young soldiers who have set out on an unknown and perilous journey, my information is that they forget, in their hearts, their doctrinal differences, and unite and co-operate in the service of the Master of all men. They, too, hold out their hands in friendship and fellowship to our friends from the United States and our kith and kin from the Dominions overseas. They are brave men, who have frequently given their lives for others. Not only do they give the soldier guidance in his daily life; not only do they endeavour to guard him from the evils that constantly beset him, whether he be at home or in a foreign land; not only do they support and sustain him when he is separated from his home and family; but, to my mind, they give another greater service than all these: when, perhaps, the soldier on or after the field of battle makes the supreme sacrifice on behalf of his country, it is the chaplain who gives him that spiritual help and comfort which allows him to die with peace in his heart.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I am sure that the House will have agreed that my hon. Friend has performed a ser-


vice in bringing this matter forward. To those who belong to that noble and sacred profession, money must inevitably be a secondary consideration, but we should be the last to agree that any chaplain in His Majesty's Forces should be in such financial straits as to be unable to provide for his family with the reasonable comfort to which every other person in this country is entitled, and to be able to educate his children. My hon. Friend paid a great tribute to this class. In the last war I was medical officer to a battalion, and I had many instances of the tremendous help given by chaplains. The work of the medical officer could hardly be carried out without the effective help of the chaplains. There are cases which the medical officer has to refer to the chaplain because they are partly physical, partly psychological and partly moral. Chaplains have to write letters home for the men, and that service is most valuable, because there are men in the British Army to-day who cannot read or write, from every part of this Kingdom. The Minister may question that, and he is in a much better position to know the facts, but I can tell him that there are units where there are men who cannot write or read intelligibly.
I know a chaplain who has been right through the campaign in the Middle East from the beginning. He is now in Tunisia and has gone through all the hardships of the battalion. On more than one occasion he has had the appreciative thanks of the commanding officer. If it can be established, as I think it can, that some chaplains serving in His Majesty's Forces who are unable to keep their families in a reasonable state of comfort, I ask the Minister to say that he will make representations to the Treasury or the Government to recognise the valuable work of this noble element of the Army who are rendering service to their country. He would thus give encouragement to a large number of chaplains. I understand there is still a certain scarcity of chaplains. Some who are outside would be prepared to come into the Army but are deterred from making the plunge by reason of the difficulties that have been pointed out. I trust the Minister will give a message of hope to those who are in the Army and to those whom we may require at a later stage.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I should like to take the opportunity to endorse what has been said by my hon. Friends and colleagues who have brought this matter forward. It is interesting that the three hon. Members who will now have spoken on behalf of the chaplains are all members of the medical profession and have shown very strong feeling in support of the sister calling—with which their profession do not always agree and with which there has often been considerable and heated argument. At the same time, we recognise the moral claim that chaplains have upon the consideration of the House of Commons for the work they do in our Forces. There are different kinds of chaplains. There is the swashbuckling type. There are also the extremely timid chaplain and the extremely efficient and all-round useful chaplain. Each of these men serves in his own way. I am thinking at the moment of a timid chaplain who was with me in Gallipoli; when he did brave things he was probably the bravest of the lot, having regard to what he had to overcome.
The Financial Secretary to the War Office is probably wondering in his mind how far he can justify any claim for better financial consideration for this arm of the Service, and it is on that point that I want to make a suggestion. We all recognise the difficult position of the chaplain in the ordinary life of the Army and in the officers' mess, where he is liable to be looked upon as an extra and out of the picture, considering the life-and-death work which the Army usually have before them. However, those who take a long-term view of the matter and are in command are fully aware that the essential thing at the bottom of victory is the morale of the men. Morale is really at the bottom of it, and we trade on it, we take it for granted. Soldiers as a rule have taken it for granted. You have this morale in the men, you have their patriotism, their self-sacrifice. What is it for? Why are they sacrificing themselves? In many cases they would not be able to say. It is a kind of feeling that they are expected to do so, but at the bottom surely it is religion, whether it is expressed or felt or not. I am one of those who fear that we are trading on the assets of the basis of our morale at the present time, and that we are failing to store such assets for the future. If that is the case—and I


at any rate feel it very strongly indeed—the more we can do to establish the position of chaplains and to encourage them in their work, the better it is. The Army have done great things in the direction of morale in this war, not only through generals whose names and their encouragement of religion are household words to us, but we have also the Army Welfare Department, which has done so much to help on and encourage this line of thought and feeling in the Army. But at bottom it is worth nothing unless you have a moral basis. It is the religious basis which is the only thing that is behind and above and over everything. If that is so and the chaplains are doing this unique service, they ought anyhow to have a position equal to that of our own profession.
It is not true, as my hon. Friend said, that the medical officer has an easy time of it when he is responsible for healthy troops. It is not the case that he is only called upon to attend to the morning sick-parade, to accidents and to casualties when men are in action. That is out of date. The modern medical officer who is up to date has to live with his regiment, he has to get to know them, to take part in their physical exercises, to know them and to encourage them to healthiness and to encourage their healthy effectiveness. That is a physiological work which he is doing if he is trained to do it. The chaplain in the Army needs no less to exert a constant influence to play his part. It is for that reason that, although it would seem that a medical man does more for the efficiency of the troops, that he has bigger obligations which he incurred in his training and better prospects outside, and that it may be easier to buy a chaplain's services in the Market, I do not think that is the proper way to look at it. I do hope that the Minister in reply may be able to give us some encouragement that he is going to lighten the burden of the Army chaplains and their families.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I only rise to assure the hon. Member who initiated this Debate and those who have supported him, that I am entirely on their side in the matter. I do not see the faintest reason why we in the House and the taxpayers at large should not supply all our modern apostles with as many pairs of shoes as we think they ought to have. Indeed, it is our duty to see that they are properly provided. But I suspected

that I saw in the speech of the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) a tendency to suggest that they themselves were putting forward proposals, and it was on that point that I intervened for fear he should go too far and present as theirs a claim which they had not made, and which he was really making on his own initiative.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I must reassure my hon. Friend that I was not putting a claim forward on their behalf at all. I happen to know something of their conditions myself, and it was because of that I was putting it forward.

Mr. Hopkinson: That is exactly the point I wanted to clear up. It was worth while intervening for a moment or two on that account, because these Debates are widely reported, and I did not want any misconception to arise or that anyone should think there is any difference of opinion in this House on this subject. What was really at the back of my mind was this: Nowadays certain high dignitaries are preaching the exact opposite to what I suppose to be the particular type of doctrine to which these chaplains are committed. They are preaching that the larger number of shoes you have and the larger number of coats you wear, and the greater amount of silver and gold and brass you have in your purse, the more likely you are to be making spiritual progress. They openly say that poverty is a danger to the souls of men. "For," they say, "if men have not a good standard of living, how can they be good?" I wish on this appropriate occasion to make a protest, because that is the sort of thing which is circulated officially at the present time and becoming the basis even of a new political party, of all things in the world, a party which attributes to the Christian faith the remarkable principle that a high standard of living is the only way to spiritual progress, so that Lazarus ought to have gone to hell, and Dives to Abraham's bosom.

Mr. Jewson: I welcome an opportunity of saying a few words in support of my hon. Friend who has brought this matter before the House, first of all because I remember the very fine services rendered by chaplains during the last war. The hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) and myself happened to serve in the same regiment.


All the chaplains I came across during my service abroad during the last war rendered very great service to the troops they looked after. I have not the least doubt that they are equally good to-day, and I feel that we ought to see as a House, that they have at any rate, in so far as other officers are concerned, what I might call most favoured nation treatment. Padres, one would suppose, should well be able to speak for themselves, but on a subject like this they put forward, as my hon. Friend opposite has said, no claims on their own behalf. That is only the more reason why we should see to it that they are not suffering from any neglect on our part, which would fail to secure for them as much pay as we think they ought to have and as we can possibly afford to give them.
As a Nonconformist, I naturally have acquaintance with a number of those who are serving in the Forces as Nonconformist chaplains. I can tell the House that a number of them are men of full age who have felt it their duty to leave their churches where they were doing their work in order to serve with the men at the Front. I do not know what their financial sacrifices are, but it may well be understood that they are men who have not any substantial resources other than their pay. For that reason also I think we ought to see that their pay is at any rate adequate to their needs. I do not think I need say any more in support of this claim, which I cannot but believe will commend itself to the House and, I hope, to the Minister.

Mr. Shinwell: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the amazing and fantastic observations which we heard from the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). I take no exception whatever to the plea presented by my hon. Friend opposite that chaplains in the Forces should be properly and decently remunerated. If, in the opinion of the public at large and of the Forces, they are rendering useful service in respect of what is called morale, or in theology, they have to live, and they ought to be properly paid. I doubt whether any hon. Member would take exception to that, but why a plea of this character should be used for the purpose of denouncing those theologians who have dared to face up to vested interests in

this country, and who seek to ally the Church, not for the first time, but against great opposition, with social security, I cannot understand, and I strongly oppose the views that have been expressed by the hon. Member. I want to ask this question. The hon. Member pretends to be an ascetic. He scorns the fleshpots. One of these days we shall see him appearing in this House in a loin cloth. Then we shall begin for the first time to believe in the sincerity of the hon. Member. He scorns those members of the Church of England, the theologians, because they want more than one pair of shoes. I should like to ask the hon. Member how many pairs of shoes he possesses.

Mr. Hopkinson: Since the hon. Member has asked me a question——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I do not really think the hon. Gentleman is in Order in asking how many pairs of shoes another hon. Member has. I cannot for the life of me see that it has anything to do with the subject being debated.

Mr. Shinwell: With great respect, that is precisely what I thought when the hon. Member for Mossley questioned the right of these spiritual gentlemen to demand more than one pair of shoes. Even if my hon. and learned Friend opposite, on behalf of the War Office intimated the intention of the Government to increase the emoluments of the gentlemen concerned, the Government would obviously have no say as to how those emoluments should be expended, whether on one pair or two pairs of shoes, but, as I pointed out, since the hon. Member for Mossley has used this Debate as a medium for expressing these grotesque views, it is about time somebody in this House replied to them.

Mr. Hopkinson: If I might interrupt the hon. Member, in spite of the fact that he has not asked a question, I am afraid he is treating this matter entirely from the point of view of the Mosaic law, and some 2,000 years ago there were certain amendments to that law upon which I based my remarks. If he will persist in keeping to it, I am afraid it is no use arguing——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Mosaic law does not apply in this House.

Mr. Shinwelll: I cannot understand why my ancestors should be brought into the discussion. I am not myself acquainted with the nature of their mode of life, but I do protest at all this poppycock about the mode of life which, in the opinion of the hon. Member, is the only kind of life which can form the basis of morale.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is not this exactly the same dispute as we once had with the hon. Gentleman's ancestors?

Mr. Shinwell: Leave my ancestors out of it. I did not drag the hon. Member's ancestors in, Least said about that subject, soonest mended. The fact is—and I express an amateurish opinion on this subject, for what it may be worth—that you can never have a true appreciation of what is called religion—which we must not always associate with theology—unless there is a material basis which will enable you to grasp it.

Dr. Thomas: On a point of Order. I believe that the Debate is on chaplains' pay, and I regret that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has utilised it for his own political purposes. Is it in Order for him to do so?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As far as I can see, this question of chaplains' pay is a fairly wide one, and, therefore while I was not prepared to allow hon. Members to go back to the Mosiac law, I would not pull up the hon. Member for what he is now saying. Also, I am afraid I did not hear some of the speeches which were made earlier.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not know why the hon. Member takes exception to my observations, because I am supporting him all the way. The first thing I said was that I thought there was a strong case for remunerating the chaplains to the Forces on a decent scale, and I hope that that will be done. My complaint is against the assumptions of the hon. Member for Mossley, who indulges in this House in far too much poppycock of the most insincere character, and I protest against that.

Professor Gruffydd: I rise to support the case which has been made on behalf of the chaplains; and I do so for a very good reason. I think my constituency has more chaplains in it than any other constituency except Oxford and Cambridge. When I was in

the Service myself, in the last war, I learned two things about chaplains. One was the tremendous amount of worry that the chaplain who had come in from outside had about his wife and children. Chaplains are very prolific men; I think they serve their country better in supplying children than any other class of professional men. It is natural that they should suffer more because of their commitments than almost any other class.
Here is a new point which I would like to bring to the notice of the House. My experience in the Navy makes me believe that a system governing chaplains like that of the Navy would be much better for the Army than the system it now has. As a Nonconformist, I do not think that chaplains should be officers. They should be ministers, as is the case in the Navy, supplying the spiritual needs of the people under their care. If that were done in the Army it would be much easier to regulate this matter of pay. There would be no comparison of rank. The difficulty, I understand—and I think the Minister will probably say so—is very often that if you promote these people to the rank which gives them the payment they deserve, you will have all sorts of repercussions in other departments in the Army. If Army chaplains were, like Navy chaplains, just ministers, paid from an outside Chaplains' Fund, it would be much more satisfactory. There is perhaps an historical reason why that is not the case in the Army. To-day there are Nonconformist chaplains, and Roman Catholic chaplains, in the Army; but in the old days all chaplains in the Army were Church of England chaplains, and came from the officer class. The Nonconformist chaplains do not come from the officer class. The Nonconformist men under their care feel a good deal of strangeness about approaching a chaplain who is an officer. They would much prefer to approach a chaplain who is, like one of their own ministers, a member of their own class. Before sitting down, I wish to express my complete agreement with what the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) has said, and I support most heartily his plea.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): In view of some of the statements which have been made, it would be preferable, I think, if I were to give the House some in-


formation about the basis on which chaplains are employed. The problem to which my hon. Friend referred in initiating the Debate applies mostly to what are known as war-time chaplains, and not to those who were serving as chaplains before the outbreak of war. War-time chaplains are given temporary commissions as chaplain fourth class, with a status equal to that of captains. They receive, as my hon. Friend said, 15s. 4d. per day, plus the allowances payable to officers of the rank of captain. They remain on this rate until selected for promotion to chaplain third class. On attaining that status, they receive pay at the rate of 27s. 2d. per day. I agree that promotion to this class is slow, as it depends upon establishment vacancies. My non. Friend made a comparison with the pay of combatant officers. I do not know where he gets his information from, but I am afraid he was rather wide of the mark. Combatant officers on appointment as second lieutenants receive 11s. a day, and after six months they normally become lieutenants at 13s. a day—not 17s. a day, as my hon. Friend alleged. After three years' service, their pay increases from 13s. a day to 14s. 6d., which my hon. Friends will observe is still less than the 15s. 4d. a day received by the chaplain from the day of his commission.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: And still less than an American corporal gets.

Mr. Henderson: It may be. It may be be less, too, than a Member of Parliament receives.

Dr. Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that after three years' service a second lieutenant gets 14s. 6d. a day. Does he still say that?

Mr. Henderson: No; I said that after six months he normally becomes a first lieutenant, and after three years' service, if he remains a first lieutenant, he gets 14s. 6d. Moreover, combatant officers of the rank of first lieutenant do not receive the allowances of a captain until they have been promoted to that rank. I would also point out that the Royal Army Chaplains Department is the only corps in the British Army in which emergency officers—that is, officers who have come in for the duration of the war, straight from civil life—all start with the status of captain. In the case of medical officers, as my

hon. Friend knows, they start in this war with the rank of lieutenant. Consideration has, however, been given to the rates of pay of chaplains, and it has been decided that the emergency chaplain who has served for three years during this war and has not received promotion to the third class shall receive 18s. 2d. a day, instead of 15s. 4d. as now. This means that approximately 20 per cent. of wartime chaplains will benefit immediately from these increases: in fact, as from Easter Sunday; and I would suggest that that is not a bad Easter offering.
May I take this opportunity of referring to the work of our chaplains? We have received many appreciative references to their work and gallantry from the various theatres of operations overseas. A considerable number of chaplains have been awarded decorations and mentions in despatches. Most of our commanders-in-chief abroad have personally expressed great appreciation of the work that chaplains have done and are doing. Both in the Middle East and in North Africa Trojan work has been done by all chaplains, but especially by those of the Eighth Army, who have been with the men of that great Force through all their vicissitudes and fortunes. My hon. Friend refers to a recent case where a Wiltshire vicar, serving with the 7th Armoured Division, which forms part of the Eighth Army, was cited as being awarded the Military Cross for gallantry during the whole campaign from El Alamein to Tripoli. I have also seen a recent casualty list which includes the names of two chaplains reported as missing, believed prisoners of war. It is reported that both these chaplains remained behind with the wounded and the dying when their positions were overrun by the enemy. Chaplains serving in France, Greece, Crete and the Far East in this war have lost their lives or have been taken prisoner in similar circumstances. More recently, in North Africa two chaplains were killed in minefields, having gone forward to succour the wounded and to bury the dead.
As a class, when they are serving abroad, chaplains have to cover long distances over rough and, in wet weather, very dangerous roads. They work exceedingly long hours day and night. The chaplains share in the living conditions of our troops in the forward areas as well as sharing the strain of battle condition and aerial strafing behind the lines. These


conditions the chaplains willingly share with the troops, and I agree with my hon. Friend when he said that their behaviour is of high value to the maintenance of morale. I hope that what I have said will satisfy my hon. Friend that the response that has been made to his appeal is satisfactory.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend if he will communicate with his opposite numbers at the Admiralty and in the Air Ministry with a view to getting some assurance that chaplains in the Royal Navy and the Air Force shall be similarly dealt with, so that the matter may be dealt with as a whole and not piecemeal?

N.A.A.F.I., STREATHAM

Mr. Robertson: On 16th February I asked the following Question of the Secretary of State for War:
On what grounds it has been decided to erect a Navy, Army and Air Force Institute on the site in Streatham he has been notified of, in direct competition with the Forces Club established by the public at Streatham, which supplies the troops at cost prices and makes no profit; and whether he is satisfied that the use of labour and materials for this purpose is justifiable?
The Secretary of State replied:
As the hon. Member is aware, this case has been very carefully considered by my Department. The N.A.A.F.I. to which his Question refers is being built in acordance with tie accepted policy in these cases to meet the very real needs of the personnel on the site, in particular of the Home Guards. They are there in considerable numbers either for operational duties or on training and it is considered they should not leave the site in the course of their period of duty. I am therefore satisfied that this institute must be built. I am glad of this opportunity to say how much the Streatham Forces Club is appreciated and I hope the troops will continue to benefit from its amenities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1943; col. 1569, Vol. 386.]
I regret that circumstances over which I have no control have prevented me from raising this very important question earlier, and this is the first opportunity I have had to ventilate the matter. The reason for starting the Streatham Forces Club is that a large number of North country troops arrived in my constituency in December, 1941, to prepare a camp. They were constructing the foundations in very cold weather and under very uncomfortable conditions, and members of the Women's Voluntary Service went round with a mobile canteen and gave them hot tea. That was very much appreciated, but

the Civil Defence authorities had to stop the canteen going there because petrol and food had not been allotted for that purpose. A number of my constituents then came to me, headed by the rector of Streatham and the leaders of the Women's Voluntary Services, and suggested doing something more for the troops. We considered taking a large empty house adjacent to the camp and using it as a Forces club, but before taking any actual step in that direction I decided to approach the War Office in writing setting out our aims and objects. That was on 24th December, 1941, and on 10th January, 1942, I received a reply from the Welfare Department reading as follows:
It is recognised that the unit now stationed on Tooting Bec Common is entitled to more canteen and recreational accommodation than it at present possesses. Headquarters, London District, is arranging for N.A.A.F.I. to set up a suitable canteen at or near the site. A survey is being made of suitable and available accommodation, including (a certain house), and in due course a decision will be reached for the military authorities.
I at once got into touch with the London district and other military authorities who appeared to have a hand in the pie, because we thought it would be a great waste of labour and material to build premises in these difficult days, when a number of suitable houses were already available. We realised the need of the troops for comforts, because they were suffering from intense cold—hon. Members will remember the hard conditions of that winter—I could not get a decision, and as there was no room for a N.A.A.F.I. and a Forces Club I took the matter to the then Under-Secretary of State for War. I am grateful to him for the prompt action he took. He called a meeting of interested parties, senior officers and others, and listened to their arguments in favour of N.A.A.F.I. They were fairly and squarely beaten. The main reason was that this was a small camp, and the house which we proposed to use was within three minutes' walking distance of the site. If it had been a larger camp, the house would have been within the area of the camp. One significant thing which impressed itself on us was that some of the officers seemed very interested in N.A.A.F.I. profits. They argued that the troops would spend money, and that the profits would not go to the Army, and they seemed to consider that a real grievance.
Having regard, however, to the fact that in the club we contemplated there would be no profits, I do not think that was a good argument. A house which had cost £5,000 was rented to us chiefly because of the good purpose for which it was to be used, and the local authority gave us a low rates assessment. My constituents found the better part of £1,000 to furnish it and agreed to provide £10 a week to subsidise it. The club is kept open for seven days a week, from 10 a.m. to 10.30 p.m., and women who have to get their husbands off to work and their children off to school are still able to provide the personnel for three shifts a day. They supplied the troops with comforts, and a welcome which I do not think N.A.A.F.I. could provide, good though N.A.A.F.I. may be. I agree that in remote places N.A.A.F.I. is a fine institution, but in a London suburb where women are willing to give their time to help in looking after the troops and there are empty houses available it is wrong to build special premises for such a canteen. We got the support of my hon. and learned Friend who was then Under-Secretary of State for War, and he told us to go ahead.
A few days later I received an entirely unsolicited letter from the War Office in which it said:
You will recollect that at the conclusion of the meeting you wished for an assurance.…that no N.A.A.F.I. would be permitted to be set up
on the site. That was the sole purpose of the meeting. There was no other object. I could not understand why I received that letter, which went on to say:
Sir Edward Grigg could not give the assurance for which you asked.…but pointed out that limitations of supply of labour and material made it extremely unlikely that any N.A.A.F.I. would be installed in the near future.
That was on 5th February, 1942. We got our club under way. We supplied cups of tea with sugar and milk and cups of cocoa at a penny a cup. We supplied Oxo at the same price, and we sold buns for a penny and sandwiches at 1½d. and 2d. each, and Welsh rarebits for 2d. each. We provide hot baths for 3d., including a towel and soap, and we supply electric irons for the use of the women in the Forces, which they find a great help. We purchase cigarettes, tobacco, and other

articles required by the troops from local retailers, and we sell them at exactly the same prices. We organise dances and provide the men with partners—nurses from the local hospital and other ladies. We have dancing classes for lads who cannot dance. We have a singsong every week, and we have a billiard room, table tennis, darts, dominoes, shove ha'penny and pin-tables. We also cater for outside sports, such as clock golf, croquet, and we have a hard tennis court. Members of the Women's Voluntary Service darn the men's socks, sew on flashes and press their uniforms. Accommodation is provided for relatives of men who visit Streatham. Tickets for theatres given by members of the community are handed out to the soldiers. The house contains about 15 rooms, and altogether it is a most desirable place. The community are very proud of it, and they have a right to be proud. Everything went well and great good for the troops was achieved until one day a posse of soldiers arrived at the club to remove the private telephone. We used that to enable men who were called for to get back to their post of duty quickly. I have said that the house was three minutes' walk from the camp, but men going at the double could get back to the camp in half that time. Some months before this incident I took the Under-Secretary of State down to the club, so that he could see for himself what my constituents were doing for the troops, and perhaps when he comes to reply he will say something about that visit.
At this stage I ought to mention that before the club was opened a wet canteen had been set up in a neighbouring house some distance away from the camp. If that had not been up, we should have supplied beer, but we had no wish to compete with a canteen already established for that purpose. I inquired why the telephone was being taken away, and I was told that N.A.A.F.I. was coming. That was the first intimation we had after we had exploded as we thought the threat of N.A.A.F.I. 12 months earlier. The Under-Secretary of State met me and the leaders of the Women's Voluntary Service, and the hon. secretary expressed his sympathy with our views, and at his request I met the commanding officer of the regiment at the club, who said he knew nothing of the project, and after a full discussion he left. A minute or so after he returned and said that the battery com-


mander had told him that plans were all out for N.A.A.F.I. A few days later I met certain other senior officers, including some who were so keen on N.A.A.F.I. a year earlier and were apparently still determined to have one. I viewed the site and saw masses of material being brought on to it, bricks, steel, iron, timber, kitchen equipment, all the things that people cannot get.
Yet we hear that the Minister of Labour cannot transfer labour into certain districts, because there is no accommodation for the workers, and we hear of munition workers travelling 100 miles a day because there is no housing accommodation where they are employed. Labour and materials are not available for the thousands of damaged houses and other properties, yet, although there is a perfectly suitable house of 15 rooms solely devoted to welfare, they must build a N.A.A.F.I. in this district. It is very hurtful to the feelings of my constituents who have paid money and given their services in order to help these young men from the North. Not only have we been able to look after them, but we have attracted personnel from balloon barrage sites, Royal Engineer detachments, Naval and Air Force cadets, and women in the A.T.S. undergoing a course in motor training at a nearby works.
It has been a great joy to me to visit the Forces Club, as I have done week after week, and see men and women from almost every county in England, Scotland and Ireland, particularly on Sunday, and Sunday can be a very lonely day in a great city. How pleased their parents would be to think that there is a place like this where their sons and daughters could go and get such a homely welcome from kindly Londoners. You can imagine now I feel about the creation of this institute. My constituents have rallied so splendidly behind the Forces Club. Every political party, associations of all kinds, and the churches, all have held raffles and done all manner of things to raise funds, and we have kept this thing going as a real and worth-while venture. In a few days' time the N.A.A.F.I. will be finished. This building, which has taken three months' labour to build, will be open.
The last excuse—and we have many excuses which we have been able on logical grounds to dismiss without serious argument—is that the personnel has changed. They are still human beings doing the job on the site, but they are no

longer Regular troops. They are irregular troops, Home Guards, men who enjoy freedom six days a week and on the seventh day have to be confined in that camp. It is an unworthy suggestion that Home Guards, who represent the cream of our people, the great bulk of them volunteers, have to be penned in and cannot be allowed to walk three minutes away to our welfare house. I question that very severely. I was not satisfied with that answer. We were told, "We want to lecture to them." I said, "Why not do it in the dining room, which was erected at public expense?" They said that they were serving dinners at all hours of the night, but obviously they were not serving all the men all the time. There would be ample room for lectures. "But we have now had a N.A.A.F.I. built, so that the military can give lectures." That was the final answer. I have tried by every known method to settle this matter privately. It gives me no joy to ventilate it in public. The creation of this N.A.A.F.I. is a scandal; it reflects no credit on the administration of the Army, of which I am so proud. It is too late to stop the waste of this unnecessary building, but this House should demand that it is not opened, and that the officers responsible should be dismissed. If nothing else is achieved, I hope the ventilation of this matter will put an end to further waste of precious labour and materials.

Sir Edward Grigg: I intervene very unwillingly in this Debate, because I necessarily intervene as a critic of the Department to which I belonged only a short time ago and in which, as my hon. Friend has just told the House, the discussions originated with regard to this Forces Club and the erection of a N.A.A.F.I. I do so unwillingly on two grounds; in the first place, because of a feeling of very real and intense indignation at what has been done, and secondly, because I believe it to be absolutely essential in the interests of the Army that this sort of thing shall be stopped.
Let me deal with the special case. I felt, when I intervened in this matter many months ago, that the case was not settled as I myself felt it ought to be. I felt that underlying the whole thing was a determination that this moloch of the N.A.A.F.I. should in due time erect its temple and its altar. I felt that that was


underlying the thing the whole time and that unless a strong hand were shown, that would happen. It has happened. There is absolutely no justification for it. With the aid of a special telephone, and one-and-a-half minutes at the double, men can be back at their stations. Anyone who knows anything about military camps knows that distances can be greater than they are. It is a slur on a public service which was ready to do everything possible on behalf of the troops in that club. I subscribe to everything that my hon. Friend has said. The spirit shown by the people of Streatham towards the troops could not have been more generous. They got nothing but a saying, "We can do all this ourselves; your action and kindnesses are not wanted." That is very bad for the Army, and I very much regret that this has been done. But it is not on the special case that I particularly want to speak. That special case, unfortunately, is over and settled. The temple has been erected; the altar stands. Unless this House chooses to tear it down, which it will be well advised to do, the Streatham Forces Club, which represents all the real spirit of generosity and appreciation of patriotic service in that part of the world, will surfer this slur. The priests of Baal will carry on. I do not stress the point, but I come to the general principle.
What is the general principle? Why are essential materials and resources of labour diverted to this quite unnecessary purpose at the present time? That is what I want to know. Quite recently, and out of my very limited experience, I have got to know of a children's hospital which cannot get an essential addition and has been told that no labour and building materials are available. I know of two important secondary education establishments which have been told the same thing. Children are being made to travel three and four miles to school. Why? Because we are told men of the Home Guard cannot double for a minute and a half to their station. It is grotesque. I know of another case which I may still have to raise in this House, but I do not refer to it at the moment. I know of a case in which an academic proposal of international importance is meeting with great difficulties on the same ground. There is no labour and no material while these quite unnecessary buildings are going on.
I understand that the Financial Secretary is going to answer. I apologise to him as an ex-Secretary for making difficulties for him, but I feel too strongly about this business to be deterred by any scruples of that kind. The thing is much too serious. What are the grounds on which it is decided to erect these N.A.A.F.I's? Is it a rule-of-thumb regulation which simply says, "If there are so many troops, then the N.A.A.F.I. people are entitled to erect their institute"? Is that the rule? Let us know that. In the second place, if that is the rule, is any regard whatever paid to the private enterprise which may take the place of a N.A.A.F.I. in that particular neighbourhood? Finally, who fixes these priorities? Is it the War Office? Who is it that says that absolutely essential material and labour may be diverted to these unnecessary purposes? I hope my hon. and learned Friend will answer this question quite clearly, because it is a matter of very great national importance at the present time. I beg my hon. and learned Friend and other members of the Government to pay attention to the fact that there is growing in this country a very strong feeling against the way in which little Caesars, dressed with brief authority, are using that authority at the present time. I beg them to realise how dangerous that is, and I ask them to see that such authority is properly used.

Mrs. Tate: I had not intended to speak in this Debate to-day, but after hearing the two powerful speeches which have just been made, I feel that I must intervene for a few moments. Yesterday I had to take a deputation of builders from Bath to Bristol to the Ministry of Works because they were perturbed about the concentration scheme in which they must join and be under the control of larger firms. It is a matter which has been handled with as much consideration as possible in these days, but, nevertheless, it is a matter of real concern when small builders have to join in a large pool and lose their individual identity. The reason given for this concentration is that it is absolutely necessary because there is a crucial shortage of building trade employees in this country at the moment. There is not one of us in this House who does not know that that is true. There are no builders for cottages, schools, hospitals and air-raid shelters—all of which are urgently needed.
Yet here we have this appalling waste of public money and of vital war material and labour. I agree with everything that has been said; we in this House must have some assurance that this sort of thing will be impossible in the future. Most of us are now engaged in going round the country asking our constituents to give and lend their money for the carrying-on of the war. We have to make appeals to people not to spend, but to give and lend everything they have. They willingly do it, but it is of little encouragement either to us or to them when we hear of this wholly unjustifiable and disgraceful waste of public money.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I intervene in the Debate for only a few moments to mention one factor which has not yet been touched upon, namely, that it is not merely a question of the use of labour and material in the construction of this N. A.A.F.I. canteen, but a question of the amount of female labour that will be required to run it after it has been erected. Only a short time ago, in answer to a Question put to him, the Minister of Labour replied that the N.A.A.F.I. had been approved as an employment agency under the Employment of Women Order for the purpose of engaging women's labour for their own services, and that they had to that extent priority over other employers and over all private employment agencies. We also know that women are being directed into the service of the N.A.A.F.I. in the same way as they are being directed into other essential Government services. These women are badly wanted in a hundred other directions. Now we have been told—and I am certain that it is the fact—that an unwanted and unnecessary canteen is being erected at Streatham, and women who could be very well employed in other essential directions will be engaged for the canteen work. It is only for that purpose that I have intervened in this Debate—to add one more to the reasons which have been so eloquently and so fully adduced by my hon. Friends as to why this canteen ought not to have been built and why no similar canteen should be erected in similar circumstances in the future.

Mr. Montague: I did not particularly want to intervene in this Debate, which seems rather in the nature of a private quarrel about something regarding which the House of Commons has

not been given much information. It has been sprung upon us, and I feel that the time allotted to-day for the Adjournment might have been devoted to questions of greater national interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not think there is any need for any interruption. I am not putting the controversial point. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] I am merely stating my view, which hon. Members cannot dispute, and I see no reason for being interrupted. My view is that the subject is not of sufficient importance, as it is being presented to-day, and that the time might be better used for questions of greater national importance.

Mr. Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Member was not in his place when I spoke.

Mr. Montague: I was.

Mr. Robertson: I made it clear to the House that I raised this matter early in February and that I had made a number of attempts to raise it since, but that circumstances outside my control had compelled me to raise it to-day.

Mr. Montague: I also represent a constituency in which a number of grievances are brought to my notice, but I do not think it necessary to bring little grievances of this kind to the attention of the House if I can have them dealt with through the Departments. [Interruption.] Surely I am entitled to express my point of view.

Mrs. Tate: The hon. Member is talking nonsense.

Mr. Montague: Well, I will leave that point. I am sorry that so much indignation has been aroused on the subject. One would have thought from the speeches which have been made that the matter was one of vital concern to the whole country. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] I am entitled to express my point of view. I will give way if there is any question of dubiety about what I am saying. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] There may be differences of opinion, but they will not be resolved merely by interrupting me. I am expressing the view I hold and a view which I am entitled to express.

Captain C. S. Taylor: I will give the hon. Gentleman an instance of dubiety. I represent a constituency which is subject to nuisance raids. I have tried to get a shelter for a school, but I


am told that there are no materials to build it, yet there are materials to build this canteen.

Mr. Montague: I really do not understand the intense feeling that has been aroused against me on this question because I doubt the desirability of spending so much time on it. Surely I am entitled to put a point of view. In view of the indignation that has been expressed, those who have presented this one-sided issue—because nothing has been said on the other side—ought to give more particulars. We do not know what the circumstances are at present, and I think we should have been told. I remember the kind of opposition that N.A.A.F.I. had when I was at the Air Ministry 10 years ago. It is a cooperative and not a profit-making institution. If it is going to be attacked in this way, something should be said to justify the assertion that some terrible national scandal has been brought to light. I doubt whether it is a scandal at all. I think it is perfectly right that the Services should have a co-operative institution of this kind and that the comfort of the troops should be looked after. It is all very well to tell me that there are private clubs. No doubt they perform a service, but we do not know whether they perform all the services that are required. If there is a scandal at all, let us be told what it is and not have an institution of this character attacked without any real facts being given. I hope the Financial Secretary will state the other side of the case and wind the point up.

Mr. Robertson: There are no profits at all.

Mr. Speaker: I ought to let the House know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to make a second speech at my suggestion. I thought it would be more convenient to the House.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: Whatever difference of opinion there may be with regard to the complaint made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson), there is certainly no difference of opinion as to the remarkable results that have been achieved by the Club for which he is responsible. As he indicated, I, like my predecessor, have paid a visit and seen for myself the type of club that it is, and in my opinion it is one of the best to be found in any part of the coun-

try. The workers are all voluntary, and, as far as I could see, they were working with the greatest enthusiasm, and those who were enjoying the amenities of the club seemed to be deriving much pleasure from them. The issue before us to-day is not, therefore, whether the Streatham Forces Club has or has not failed in its functions, but whether or not there were justifications for constructing the N.A.A.F.I. canteen. The hon. Member was perfectly fair. He quoted from a letter sent him in February last year which, I think, at any rate, protects the War Office from any suggestion that it has been guilty of a breach of faith. The letter states that Sir Edward Grigg could not give the assurance asked for in regard to the N.A.A.F.I., but pointed out that limitations of the supply of labour and material made it extremely unlikely that any N.A.A.F.I. would be installed in the near future. That was the position taken up in February last year, and it continued to be the position until the latter part of the year, but subsequent to the sending of the letter a decision was taken to include the Home Guard personnel in certain anti-aircraft battery units, and in War Office letters sent out in April and August it was laid down that institutes, that is, canteens, should be provided at each battery site for 20 non-commissioned officers and 200 men. The battery in question was one of those affected by this decision. Some of the batteries concerned already had N.A.A.F.I. canteens, but, as regards those which were without a canteen, contracts were made in August for their construction.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) has taken great exception to what he called this unnecessary diversion of labour and material for the provision of canteens which he considers unnecessary. I hope that as long as I remain at the War Office I shall never be accused of not doing everything I can to safeguard the interests of members of the Fighting Forces, front-line troops, anti-aircraft units, or any other branch of the Army who have to spend their lives at battery sites or in camps or wherever they may be stationed. It is true that in large camps the N.A.A.F.I. are three, four, five or six minutes away from the men's sleeping quarters, but I know very few operational sites where that is the


case, though it is the case at a good many training establishments. The battery that we are concerned with is part of the air defence of London and must be looked at from the point of view of operational requirements. The point was raised in discussions before my advent to the War Office, and we have been told to-day that the operational basis was overruled. That may or may not have been the case. I will accept that it was, but the point that I am making is that the situation, rightly or wrongly, subsequently changed as the result of the policy now being carried out in relation to the employment of thousands of the Home Guard at the various battery sites forming part of the air defence of London. The present establishment of the type of battery in question includes between 100 and 200 Home Guard, in addition to a number of Regular soldiers and members of the A.T.S. This number of Home Guard is on both operational and training duty on each night of the week, and, in addition, there are from 16 to 20 trainees on the site each night and a further 100 at the week end.
Every battery in the Metropolitan area has been, or is being, provided with N.A.A.F.I.'s, and this battery is no exception. It was considered essential that a N.A.A.F.I. institute should be completed to meet the needs of this battery, and it was considered that a N.A.A.F.I. canteen had been made additionally essential by the reason of the advent of the Home Guard. It appears—in fact, my hon. Friend has said—that there was no wet canteen at the Streatham Forces Club, for reasons which he has given, and I am informed that it is desired by the men, both Regular and Home Guard. During training periods, especially on Saturday and Sundays, breaks of only ten minutes are allowed, which are regarded as being too short to enable the men to leave the site. From the operational point of view the Home Guard are on duty only during the hours of darkness, and during that tour of duty it is considered not possible and certainly not desirable to allow them to leave the site. Formerly, when the battery was at its normal full strength of Regulars, the men were on the site all day and night, and during their leisure periods a proportion of them were allowed to visit Streatham Forces Club. This is not the case with the Home Guard. The objection to troops on operational duty leaving the

battery site during their tour of duty must, in our view, be upheld. Within the confines of the camp they are, of course, under Army control. In the case of the Home Guard personnel who are under instruction—50 to 200 each night and 300 at the week-ends—the intervals between instructional periods are only short and do not permit their being allowed to leave the site. There is no intention of debarring personnel of the battery using the Streatham Forces Club when they are off duty. In fact, the facilities offered by this Club are greatly appreciated by all concerned.
The real point of difference is whether or not, having regard to the existence of this Club four or five minutes outside the perimeter of the battery, the military authorities, having regard to the changed circumstances, should have subordinated their operational requirements and allowed both Regulars and Home Guard at their will to leave the site between their instructional period and go off to the Club. That is not the view which is taken by the military authorities and it is a view which I think cannot be upheld. As regards the charge that there was widespread wastage of labour and material in the case we are considering, the number of men engaged in building the canteen was nine and it took twelve weeks to construct it. If that were to be repeated in a large number of places for the purpose of constructing canteens or any other buildings which were unnecessary, the House would agree that the sooner it was stopped the better. We come back to this point: do we approve of the provision of N.A.A.F.I. canteens for the various units in the Metropolitan area which form part of the air defence of the Metropolis, and do we agree that in so far as it has become necessary to use large numbers of Home Guards it is reasonable to give them amenities on the battery site so as to make it undesirable and unnecessary for them to leave the site during the hours of duty? That is a reasonable view to take and, therefore, because of this change of circumstances it was decided not to stop the construction of this canteen. I can only say to my hon. Friend who raised this matter that, as he knows perfectly well, no one would hope that what has taken place would interfere with the magnificent service that the Streatham Forces Club has


rendered in the past, and I see no reason why it should not render the same excellent services in future.

Sir E. Grigg: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend to answer two Questions I put to him? How many men on a given site are held to justify the erection of a N.A.A.F.I., and who is responsible for the priorities?

Mr. Henderson: In a War Office decision in August last year it was provided that where there were 20 N.C.O.'s and 200 other ranks it was permissible to erect a N.A.A.F.I. canteen. As regards the second question, my hon. Friend knows as well as I do, having served in the War Office, that where a War Office letter is issued it is issued to the command, and it would be for the particular command—in this case the London district—to determine priority in relation to the erection of a particular N.A.A.F.I. on a particular site.

Sir E. Grigg: My hon. and learned Friend has not quite answered my point. I understand about priorities inside the Army. What I want to know is, whose responsibility is it, whatever the demands of the N.A.A.F.I. may be, to say that they are apparently to be satisfied in preference to all other national demands?

Mr. Henderson: I do not think my hon. Friend would want to cause anyone to have a wrong impression as to the position. It is not a question of satisfying the demands of N.A.A.F.I. It is a question of satisfying the needs of the troops, and that is not a matter for the controlling authority of N.A.A.F.I. but is a matter ultimately for the Army Council, acting through the Quartermaster-General.

LIEUT.-COLONEL GATES

Mr. McGhee: On 17th March last I raised a complaint against the conduct of a training battalion officer, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office gave me a reply which I thought was unsatisfactory and inconclusive. I afterwards put a Question to the Secretary of State for War, and his reply was to the effect that a further complaint which I had made would be investigated and action taken. I am asking to-day what action has been taken. I have no more complaints to make about this officer. My complaint is now against the

Secretary of State for War, not personally, but as the Parliamentary head of the Department responsible for retaining this officer in employment and for promoting him in rank after they had considered his case. In his deply on 17th March the Financial Secretary said that all the incidents had been inquired into and that the situation which had arisen at this training centre had come to the knowledge of this officer's superior officers. I doubt that, because if the facts that these superior officers knew were put before the appropriate authorities at the War Office then the latter were very lax in the action they took. I am not prepared at this moment to state some of the incidents which were, in my view, not reported to the appropriate authority at the War Office, which I believe was the Army Council, because I do not want to hurt the feelings of certain innocent people who might be involved, but I must warn the right hon. Gentleman that unless his reply to-day is much more satisfactory than was the reply of the Financial Secretary I may be forced to state the nature of these incidents, and if I do that, a shiver of horror will, in my view, pass through all the homes in this country, from which boys have gone into the Army.
When the Financial Secretary replied he said it had been decided that this officer was unsuitable to command men. I may be very innocent, but I took it that this officer had been put into a position in some office in the War Office in Whitehall where he would very likely be signing documents or writing documents and would not be in command of men at all. But that is not so. I am not saying that my hon. and learned Friend misled the House, but I am innocent, and I think a lot of other Members are innocent, and I took it that he was in a job where he could not injure men or, as he himself said, make their lives miserable. He is actually out inspecting men, and he has been known to do some little badgering about saluting, which I understand exercises the minds of very many officers, heaven knows why. I do hot understand anybody desiring any other human being to salute him. That is completely beyond my comprehension.

Major Petherick: Does the hon. Member not know the origin of saluting? When a private soldier is saluting an officer or a captain


is saluting a major he is not saluting a superior officer, but is saluting the King's uniform.

Mr. McGhee: The original reason for saluting was to show that the man had not a knife in his hands or any other weapon to attack his officer. While it may be a case of saluting the King's uniform, I cannot understand the wearers of the King's uniform who hold commissions wanting to be saluted. I am quite sure that in many cases the men do not object to saluting—there is nothing in that at all—but I certainly do not understand anybody considering himself so superior that he wants to be saluted. I understand now that this officer has had selective promotion, and that means that in his dealings with both officers and non-commissioned officers and men he has a great deal more power to-day than he had when he was in command of a training battalion. The Financial Secretary seemed to suggest that this officer made some great difference in this battalion when he came to it. I have been at some little pains to make inquiries, and I understand that when this officer came to this battalion it was a good and efficient battalion, and I understand it is still a good and efficient battalion, so the statement that he made some great change in the battalion is obviously untrue.
I know the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficulty. I feel that the case was sent to the wrong authority. This officer's case was referred, not to the War Office authority, probably, but the Army Council. He could have been court-martialled, but I understand that is impossible now, because he has already been tried by the Army Council. I contend that the whole of the facts were not before the Army Council, and that if they had been they would have taken an entirely different view; at least, I hope so. The right hon. Gentleman can have it whichever way he likes. Either they throw these training battalions into the country and pay no more attention to them, and anything from pitch-and-toss to manslaughter can occur in a battalion and they do not pay any attention to it; or—and this is important—if they knew of the incidents that happened in this battalion right from the start, the incident of January, 1942, and the incident of June, 1942, and no action was taken until I raised the matter, then I consider that my complaint is

well-founded, and that backstairs influence must have been exercised in the War Office. This man boasted of it and, in fact, received the precise appointment which he boasted he would get. The right hon. Gentleman can have it either way. Either the War Office do not pay any attention to these training battalions or there was undue influence exercised on behalf of this man at the War Office. It may be that both statements are true.
I have only one other point to raise, and I think it is a very important one. I want to know whether any decision has been come to regarding the records of illegal punishments inflicted on these men. A number of men must have received these punishments quite illegally, and they are on the records. I understand that it is contended that it would be very difficult to remove them. I suggest that all punishments of this character, if need be, ought to be removed from the records of these men, because it will be far better to clear a dozen guilty men than to make one innocent man suffer. That is all I ask, and I hope I shall have a more satisfactory reply on the continued employment of this gentleman in the position he now holds.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): There has already been one Debate on this subject, and I do not propose, any more than the hon. Member did, to traverse the whole field of that Debate, but I should like to give the House a brief account of the past history of the matter as I see it. Colonel Gates was removed from the command of a training battalion towards the end of 1942. The removal occurred as a consequence of an adverse report by his brigadier, which stated that Colonel Gates, although energetic and keen and possessing considerable ability, insisted upon a very high standard of drill and turnout in his battalion, regardless of whether such a standard could reasonably be attained in existing conditions, and enforced sterner disciplinary measures for its attainment than should be necessary. His district commander, who knew him personally and knew his work, in passing on the report referred to Colonel Gates's conspicuous success in training large numbers of men—and that disposes of one of the hon. Member's points—and considered that his only faults were excessive zeal—a very rare fault in these days—and lack of


forethought, which led him to make use of unorthodox methods. His area commander agreed that Colonel Gates was a capable and zealous officer with a high standard of discipline but considered him unsuitable for the command of a training unit, as his energy was at time misapplied and his judgment not always sound; but he strongly recommended him for further employment.
Colonel Gates appealed to the Army Council against the adverse report, and the matter therefore came before the Army Council in its judicial or appellate capacity. The decision, come to early in 1943, was to confirm his relinquishment of the command of his training unit but to employ him in a first-grade staff appointment as and when there was a suitable vacancy. I have seen some suggestions, and the hon. Member has repeated them to-day, that this was a disreputable decision, come to on account of undue influence, but I have read the papers myself, and I find not a shred of support for any such suggestion. Indeed, I do not see how there can be, because all these appeals have to go to no less than three members of the Army Council.
That brings me to the last Adjournment Debate on this subject. The next thing is the Question to me on 30th March by the hon. Member opposite, demanding that Colonel Gates should be thrown out of his new appointment on account of two so-called new incidents. One of these, which I will call for short the "yapping dogs" incident, I dealt with at the time and, as I thought, to the satisfaction of the House generally. I have seen a full account of the annoyance, I might almost say persecution, to which Colonel Gates was subjected, and I can only say that my own patience would, under a similar strain, have given out much more quickly. On the second complaint I said that I was making detailed inquiry. As a matter of fact, I asked the General Officer Commanding in charge of the Command in which Colonel Gates is now serving, to go into this matter personally and to go into Colonel Gates's performance of his duties. The General Officer Commanding is a man in whose judgment and impartiality I have the utmost confidence. He was not in the Command in which the previous incidents occurred. There can be no sort of question whatever of any pull in this case.
In regard to the specific incident which related to a rebuke to a non-commissioned officer for saluting badly, the General Officer Commanding reported that he himself had been into the matter, and he could see nothing that was wrong, and, moreover, it had occurred a day before the publication in the Press of the Debate in this House—not that that is more than of minor relevance. As regards his work generally, the General Officer Commanding reported that Colonel Gates was a most enthusiastic and efficient officer who set an extremely high standard. His fault, if he had one, was that he was an individualist. That is a horrible fault, I can see that. [An HON. MEMBER: "So was Crippen an individualist."] He was not; he was a pluralist. In his enthusiasm, Colonel Gates was inclined to take the straight road to his objective—another horrible fault—and thereby perhaps offend others whose standard was lower and who were inclined to favour an easy life. He was satisfied with Colonel Gates's work in every respect and had no complaints to make about it. At the same time he had warned him to be extremely careful to avoid incidents or anything which could be represented as an incident. The Commander concluded that should Colonel Gates's work appear to him in any way unsatisfactory he would, of course, take action to have him changed, but this was certainly not the case at present.
May I say on that point that even if I accepted the hon. Member's invitation and removed Colonel Gates from the Army, Colonel Gates would have an appeal to the Army Council and to His Majesty, and in the face of that, his appeal would certainly succeed. Now let me read to the House a letter which has been forwarded both to me and to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee) by another Member of this House. It is not the only one of this kind I have received, but it will do for my present purpose:
Dear Sir,—May I occupy a moment of your time, in the interests of fair play to Lieut.-Colonel Gates, as voices (uninformed) are being raised against him in the House?
My son, one of your constituents, served under him as a driver and lance-corporal in France and through Dunkirk. My son is now a captain serving overseas. He has been eloquent in praise of Lieut.-Colonel Gates both as a man and as an officer, and regards his service and training under him as the most valuable part of his service. He has told me


too that he is a highly efficient officer, and a man who got things done—a necessity in a war of this sort.
I agree about that. The letter goes on:
From France I had letters telling me of the personal interest Major Gates (as he then was) took in the comfort and care of his men and that morally he was a good example to officers and men. One would think that common decency towards a man who, it is admitted, was instrumental in saving hundreds of lives at Dunkirk, would have kept' lay journalists from seeking copy that way, but if, Sir, you can raise a voice in the House for fair play, I with others shall be grateful. I would say from what my son has told me, that Lieut.-Colonel Gates is at heart kindly and approachable and still continues correspondence with young men he has helped with counsel and training and who have served under him, in regard to their progress in the field. I would add that I have written to this effect already to the Under-Secretary of State for War.
Perhaps the House and the hon. Member will bear with me while I read another document, addressed to the electors of Penistone. It says:
The Government's hesitating and aimless foreign policy has been the main contributing factor to the present Imperalist war.
I think that must have been the Italian attack upon Abyssinia. I was in India at the time, so I am not sure what it was. The document goes on:
It has been, and it will be, made the excuse for increasing the already swollen Armed Forces.
Those who were at Dunkirk will have a good deal to say about the swollen Armed Forces,
I unhesitatingly pledge myself to oppose and resist by every constitutional"—

Mr. James Griffiths: May I rise to a point of Order? The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee) is raising a matter on the Adjournment, consequent upon receiving a reply which he considered unsatisfactory to a Question addressed to the, right hon. Gentleman, and he is exercising the right of a Member of Parliament to raise a matter on the Adjournment. Is it in Order for a Minister of the Crown to quote from a document of years ago in such a way as to prejudice the issue raised by the hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member has a right to make out his own case in his own way, and the Minister is equally entitled so to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]

Sir J. Grigg: I am not going to make undue use of this——

Hon. Members: Why quote it?

Mr. McGhee: I am not seeking your protection, Mr. Speaker, for anything I have said about the Armed Forces of the Crown. I was justified at the time I made that statement, and so was Baldwin. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If this point is to be raised, I want to know why the Tory Party and large numbers of the members of this Government not only did not help to swell the Armed Forces but helped to build up Hitler and his power.

Sir J. Grigg: I go on with my quotation:
I unhesitatingly pledge myself to oppose and resist by every constitutional means every proposal to increase armaments of any kind; especially, in particular"—
and this is the point I really want the House to hear—
I am opposed to supplying the means for aerial warfare for the continuance of which the Tory National Government is mainly responsible.

Mr. Sloan: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to go back and quote statements that have been made by a Member years and years ago when he is replying to this point? Are you prepared to allow it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to stop hon. Members on any side of the House from quoting statements by other hon. Members. It is not my duty to censor hon. Members' speeches.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Would it be in Order for us on this side to quote commendations of Hitler made by Members on the other side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: If appropriate to the Debate, it would be in Order.

Mr. Sloan: What is the relevant point of this quotation?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not ask me to interpret the speech of the Minister.

Sir J. Grigg: The point is this, that it was an extremely sage remark which Shakespeare put into the mouth of I think:
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping?
That being so, I think the hon. Member for Penistone might indulge in a little more charity.

Mr. Molson: I desire to ask the Minister without Portfolio some questions——

Mr. Bellenger: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that in your calling on the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) this question which has been raised by my hon. Friend and replied to by the Minister is now closed?

Mr. Speaker: That was my intention. Any other course is not fair to other hon. Members who have been informed that they are likely to be called on other subjects.

Mr. Ammon: There have Only been two speakers, and the Minister has imported something entirely new.

Mr. Speaker: I had been notified that the Debate on this subject was going to be very short.

Mr. Stokes: Further to that point of Order. The Minister has introduced a highly important controversial matter. I for one have some very important things that I want to say in reply to the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Molson.

Mr. Stokes: I wish to protest.

Mr. Mainwaring: Is it not within the power of the House itself to determine whether it moves on to another subject?

Mr. Speaker: In these Adjournment Debates it is a matter: for me.

Mr. Stokes: It is most unfair.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member said something which he ought to withdraw.

Mr. Stokes: I beg to withdraw it, but I am still of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that you ought to have given us an opportunity to answer him.

POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION

Mr. Molson: I desire to raise two matters which I believe fall within the responsibility of the Minister without Portfolio. It is, I think, recognised that there is a widespread interest, not only in this country but in the Army, with regard to, what the

Government are doing in order to make preparations for reconstruction after the war. In reply to a Question recently by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), the Minister expressed his willingness to make a statement on some of the matters with which he is concerned. It is clear that it would not be reasonable to ask those Government Departments which are most immediately concerned with the conduct of the war to take the first steps in the direction of reconstruction. It is rather those Government Departments which are not chiefly preoccupied with the war which may reasonably be expected to be getting on with the plans. It is largely for that reason that I want to ask my right hon. and learned Friend what is happening in his Department with regard to the recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee? You, Mr. Speaker, will appreciate that my task to-day will be a delicate one, since the Minister without Portfolio is largely concerned with making preparations for reconstruction which will involve legislation, but I hope I shall not transgress if I do no not go into details of any of the legislation which will be required.
At the end of this war one of the most urgent needs will be for the immediate undertaking of a large scale of rehousing for the people of this country. If that housebuilding is, to be undertaken, it will be necessary for the national plan to be already in existence, and if the national plan for which the Minister of Town and Country Planning is to be responsible is to be undertaken it is obviously necessary that that Department must be aware of the powers it will be, given in order to give effect to that plan. There is, I think, a widespread uneasiness both in this House land in the country that we have not been told what progress is being made upon those lines. There was two days ago a leading article in "The Times" which asked some very pertinent questions.
My right hon. and learned Friend when speaking upon this subject on 1st December said that the Uthwatt Committee made four principal recommendations. The first was with regard to the setting up of machinery for a central planning authority; second, the acquisition by the State of development rights in undeveloped land; third, wide and simple powers of compulsory acquisition of land by local


authorities; and fourthly, a periodic levy on increases in annual site values. Since 1st December the House has passed legislation which has set up a Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
The first question I should like to ask is to what extent has the Minister without Portfolio transferred to the new Ministry of Town and Country Planning the responsibility for considering how far and in what way the Government should give effect to the other recommendations of the Uthwatt Report. Perhaps the most urgent and pressing of the recommendations that were then made was that the State should acquire development rights in undeveloped land. It seems to me that it will be very difficult for the Minister of Town and Country Planning to make his national plan for the redevelopment of this country unless the Government have come to some decision on whether they are prepared to accept the Uthwatt Committee's recommendation upon that matter. The third recommendation was that the Government should take wide and simple powers of compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities. I think I should draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to what he said on that occasion. He said:
It is, of course, no good taking the powers unless you have the wherewithal to exercise the powers. The Government consider that local authorities, when preparing their schemes, should have in mind the objective that they should ultimately become self-supporting."—[OFFICIAI REPORT, 1st December, 1942; col. 1093, Vol. 385.]
I suggest that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between the Government deciding what powers they wish to confer upon the local authorities in the post-war period and the degree to which in any individual case the taxpayer should be called upon to give assistance to any particular local authority. If I may give a concrete case, suppose that it were proposed in the redevelopment of London that there should be a wide open space from St. Paul's Cathedral down to the river. It would naturally be a matter for negotiation between the Treasury and the appropriate local authority or planning authority, as the case might be, as to how far the Treasury should come to the assistance of the local authority in meeting the cost of that redevelopment. But surely that is a matter to be dealt With at the time, and when each individual

case arises. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend what the view of the Government is as to the need for providing without any delay the machinery by which planning authorities would be able compulsorily to obtain possession of land. I am not going to press my right hon. and learned Friend upon the matter of a periodic levy on increases in annual site values, because I fully realise that that is a matter which will involve very anxious consideration by the Government, and it is obviously one, as he pointed out in that speech, which does not call for any immediate answer. But I feel that it would be of great advantage to the House and to the country if we had from my right hon. and learned Friend to-day an assurance that there is no intention of pigeonholing the Uthwatt Report and that these matters shall not, because they will arouse controversy, be postponed indefinitely.
I turn from the Uthwatt Report to the machinery which has been set up by the Government for implementing those recommendations of the Beveridge Report which they are willing to accept. I think that the locus classicus upon this subject is the speech of the Lord President of the Council on 16th February, when some of my hon. Friends and I were pressing for the setting-up of a Minister of Social Security. The Lord President expressed the view that in the reorganisation of so many branches of our social insurance and social security it was necessary that each individual Department which had experience of some particular branch should be left to consider how to reorganise that particular service. He went on to say:
It may be found desirable to create the nucleus of the new combined organisation now by constituting a small body of experienced persons who will devote themselves, with the Departments concerned, entirely to the task of bringing the project, as a whole, into legislative form.
After an interruption from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), and his reply, the Lord President said:
We will meet the necessities of the moment by putting the burden on existing Departments and setting up a small central staff of experienced people who will devote their whole time to the matter.
Then the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said:
To whom will the nucleus staff be responsible, and under whom will they act—the


Minister of Health, the Minister without Portfolio, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
The Lord President replied:
The intention was that it should be under my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1943; cols, 1677–8, Vol. 386.]
My hon. Friends and I deduced from that that the general set-up would be more or less on these lines: that, while the Ministry of Labour would be engaged upon considering the changes recommended in unemployment insurance and the Ministry of Health would be engaged in reconsidering national health insurance and the creation of a great national health service, there would be, in order to bring the work of these different Departments into harmony one with another, a small nucleus of six or seven experienced civil servants, who would sit and work together and co-ordinate the work of the Departments from which they themselves no doubt would have been drawn, and with which they would have intimate contact. It is understood that the Minister under whom they would work, and to whom, perhaps I might say, they would show up their work when it was done, was my right hon. and learned Friend. It was also made quite plain in the same Debate that there was a Committee of the War Cabinet which would take a very close and intimate interest in what was being done by my right hon. and learned Friend and his little nucleus of civil servants. It was on that assumption that we put upon the Order Paper a Motion, asking for a Minister—as opposed to a Ministry—of Social Security. We had in mind that the Lord President of the Council—I think it is an open secret that he is Chairman of a Committee of the War Cabinet which concerns itself especially with these matters—should be responsible for supervising the work of this nucleus of civil servants, who are themselves responsible for co-ordinating the work of the different Departments.
I confess I do not quite understand what useful function my right hon. and learned Friend performs. His long and distinguished career has been chiefly spent in the law courts, and his experience of the administration, of great Departments of State has been confined, as far as I know, to the Paymaster-General's office. It was for that reason that I thought it would be preferable that

the Chairman of the Committee of the War Cabinet on matters of major policy should deal with the day-to-day work of this nucleus of the co-ordinating staff. I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether our understanding of the set-up is correct, and I would like to have an assurance from him that the various Departments are actively engaged in studying the proposals of the Beveridge Report and, in so far as they have been accepted by the Government, are attempting to translate them into legislative form. I am particularly anxious to know what the position is with regard to workmen's compensation. Certain hon Gentlemen on the opposite benches have frequently pressed the Government to grant a day for the discussion of workmen's compensation in its present form, and I feel that the reason why the Government have not been able to provide Parliamentary time for the discussion of any piecemeal amendment of the existing legislation is that they have under contemplation, perhaps between the different Departments concerned, the broad principles of workmen's compensation as laid down in the Beveridge Report.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member is getting on very dangerous ground. I cannot see how workmen's compensation can be other than a matter for legislation.

Mr. Molson: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. and learned Friend and his nucleus of civil servants are engaged in studying all these difficult and controversial matters, and it may well be that on almost every subject legislation will be required. But I do not wish to trespass any further. Since my right hon. and learned Friend is chairman of a sort of study circle of civil servants, I am anxious to know exactly what subjects are engaging their attention, and I venture to express the hope that such questions as workmen's compensation and industrial insurance will be fitted into their proper place in the general survey. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give the House and the country an assurance that these matters, which are of such great interest for the post-war period of reconstruction, are really engaging his attention. I hope he may be able also to dispel the impression which is getting abroad that some of these Reports which have been presented to


the House have been in some measure pigeon-holed.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: My hon. Friend has made a searching and powerful reconnaissance of some sectors of the reconstruction front. I would like particularly to stress two points he made. He said great expectations had been aroused in the country concerning proposals for reconstruction, and he voiced the opinion that many people were disturbed at the fact that these proposals might have been pigeon-holed. If I may use the simile, the stage has been set, the footlights have been turned on, the orchestra has played the opening bars of the overture—the Anderson double bass, the Morrison cornet, the Kingsley Wood piccolo, together with the Scott-Uthwatt violins. But the audience are beginning to ask why the curtain is not raised. Is there, perhaps, after all a hitch? Has the back cloth stuck on its pulleys, or are the actors still discussing in the wings what roles they are to play? I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give some details of the transformation scene.
My hon. Friend the Member for the High Peak (Mr. Molson) also drew attention to the machinery which exists for the consideration of the Beveridge proposals. If I understood the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend on 1st December rightly, he said the appropriate Department puts up proposals, then it is studied by a committee of civil servants, then it passes to the Ministerial Committee presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend and finally it goes for decision to the War Cabinet.
In some matters I think that is the right system. If I can borrow an Air Force simile, the Ministerial Committee acts as a filter room, which collects information but only passes on essential facts to the operations room of the War Cabinet. But in relation to the Beveridge Report, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the High Peak that I cannot see what function my right hon. and learned Friend usefully performs. Could not the proposals, when they have been studied by these civil servants, pass direct for decision to the Lord President of the Council?
Now I will turn the searchlight of my inquiry to other problems and I would

like to speak first of demobilisation. I feel that we must accept the proposition of the Prime Minister in his recent broadcast that in all likelihood the war against Germany and Italy will terminate before the war against Japan. If we accept the estimates of Mr. Hanson Baldwin, the well-known American commentator, the Allied Forces available to operate against Japan at that time will amount to about 500 divisions. If Russia decides not to break her neutrality in relation to Japan, that force would be greatly reduced, but at the same time it would be possible to arm Chinese divisions. If we are to credit the leading article in "The Times" of to-day, the United States and Britain will be able to put something like 20,000,000 men into the field. Then we have to fake into account the powerful two-ocean Navy which the United States will then have in existence as well as our own Navy and an overwhelming Air Force.
It seems obvious that it would be possible to send home a great number of men who are wanted in the essential industries. We could not possibly employ these great Forces against Japan alone. We have been told that the main principle on which demobilisation will be based will be age and length of service. I am not certain that I altogether agree with that. I think it is vital that our great industries should receive priority, and I would take first, our four great export industries, cotton, coal, iron and steel and wool. I believe that men who formerly worked in those industries should receive priority in coming home, because our export trade is vital. The shipping trade is already fully employed, but I would add to those industries civil aviation. We shall have a highly trained, competent body of men available, and we should have good transport planes. Next I believe the building industry should receive priority. You only have to go through the cities of the country—Coventry, Plymouth, London and others—to see the vast amount of rebuilding that will have to be done. I therefore ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would not be possible in a demobilisation scheme to allow men employed in these industries to have priority in returning home.
This brings me to the question of the export trade. I understand from the speech of my hon. Friend that a survey has been carried out industry by industry and that


a committee of expert civil servants of the Department of Overseas Trade are now studying the export trade. At the end of this war we shall be in a very different position from what we were before. For a century and a half we have been the great exporting country of the world, but we have bought our industrial triumphs at a terrible price. In this industrial age we only have one raw material in this country—coal—which provides the basis of the iron and steel industry, but for everything else we depend entirely on our skill as a people to manufacture goods for export. If any nation lives dangerously this nation certainly does.
At the end of the war we shall find our great Ally, the United States of America, the greatest exporting country in the world. The great, benevolent Lend-Lease measure will have sent American goods into every corner of the globe. In this great country—let us face the facts—a young people, energetic, gifted with mechanical genius, the country of Mr. Kaiser, Mr. Ford, and the Farm Belt, will see great and glittering possibilities in the world round about them for an expansion of trade. We cannot carp and criticise if certain people on the other side of the Atlantic do not draw attention to these possibilities. I believe it is equally relevant that men in higher spheres, writers and authors of the stamp of Mr. Agar, should claim that after the war it will be for America a time of greatness, not of material greatness, but of moral greatness to realise the true interest of the United States lies, not in economic Imperialism, but in sharing equally the fruits of the world with other countries. I think it is true that the material interests of the United States are best served by co-operation with the British Commonwealth of Nations. No less than 42 per cent. of America's foreign investments are in the British Commonwealth, and this country in particular provides the best overseas market for American goods. In the past we have indulged in trade wars, rubber wars, oil wars, and shipping wars. This is the path of folly. If we look at the British Commonwealth as a whole and the United States, we find that we send each other goods in bulk which we can obtain only with difficulty from other sources. We send the U.S. wool and rubber and nickel, and they can send us cotton, copper and other very valuable substances. Surely it

would be possible for the Commonwealth as a unit to come to an agreement with the United States on post-war trade policies and make our trade not antagonistic but complementary. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in the course of his work, investigations are going on and talks are taking place with people in Washington to study the possibilities?
Finally, I come to the location of industry. When the war ends we shall find areas we knew as special areas enjoying at least a temporary phase of prosperity. Hon. Members like myself must be very familiar with those areas. I shall never forget my first visit to my own constituency of Oldham to find 22,000 unemployed, queues outside the employment exchange, sale notices on the mills, and to go from house to house and be met by that Lancashire colloquialism, "Yes, I have been playing now for two years." Anybody who saw such sights never wants to see them again. We all feel that we must make far greater efforts after the war to cure the problem of the special areas. Fortunately, if we look at the map, we localise the areas in single industries or export industries—South Wales, Lancashire, parts of Cumberland, the Tyne, and the Clyde. We can also see, also from our experience before the war, areas like the Birmingham area, where industries are mixed—light and heavy industries. These areas suffered less than the purely one-industry areas like the special areas. Before the war the Government had attempted to set up trading estates. One went to the Tyne and the other to South Wales. I feel, and perhaps other hon. Members do, that we shall have to take far more active measures after the war to keep the industries in those areas. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether among his other activities that problem is being considered?
One last word. He has the vast task—he is almost Atlas bearing the World on his shoulders—of reconstruction after the war. I feel strongly that we can devise the machinery, but it is up to us to see that it works. It is for this country and for this House in particular to see that the new spirit which has been born in the war still persists after the war. I believe that during the blitz something like 3,000 tons of bombs were dropped a month and the City of London alone received 50,000 high explosive bombs. That


was a high price to pay for the community of spirit which grew up then, and, as one American commentator said, the first and best propaganda our people received overseas were the flames which went up from our cities, for in that period was born the spirit—and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) referred to it the other day—that "we are all in, it together." We in this House can powerfully effect reconstruction plans after the war if we maintain the spirit that "we are all in it together." Therefore, I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give us at least a glimpse of some of the thoughts passing through his head and of some of the plans the people in this country are hoping to see, and that we on our part will give a lead to the country in the spirit of "We are all in it together."

Mr. Stokes: I would like to say with what particular pleasure I have listened to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr). I all too rarely hear his speeches, and although I do not always agree with him, I very much appreciate the way he puts them over. Also I agree with the main burden of his speech. We all want to know what the Government are doing about it now. The hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of export. I am not going to quote a long list of figures. I have not them with me. When I came into the House I did not know that I was going to speak, but I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman to whom these remarks are addressed, of the events which preceded the present war. In the period 1932–39—as far as I recollect it was in 1932—when the tariff policy came in, our exports fell by about 50 per cent. It is well that he should appreciate that point when considering the policy that the Government will have to adopt when the war comes to an end. I, personally, hope some way will be found of continuing a form of international Lend-Lease whereby the peoples with exportable surpluses are prepared to export them to countries which have less than they have without expecting a quid pro quo.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Beveridge Report. I do not propose to detain the House by indulging in criticism of that Report except to say this. All the main Government speakers in the three days' Debate—the Lord

President of the Council, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary—and, on a previous occasion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, gave a certain meed of praise to the Report but said it could only be carried out subject to financial considerations. With great respect to all four Ministers, I want to say that that is nonsense. It does not depend upon financial considerations, as such, at all. It depends upon our economic resources and I hope those Ministers will accept the view, if they have not already done so, that what is morally right is economically possible, that what is economically possible must be financially practicable and that the financial machine must be so amended as to enable us to make the maximum use of our natural resources. If application of the Beveridge scheme is morally right, then it is economically possible and ought not to be stopped by book-keeping entries which prevent us from getting at our natural resources.
I want now to refer to the Uthwatt Report. I am not satisfied with that Report. I agree that if is the habit of the Government to have reports, pigeonhole them and let them get dusty in the hope that the House will not exercise a watchful eye, but for four reasons I would ask that the Uthwatt Report should not be put into operation as it now stands. First, it states specifically in the terms of reference that one of the objects of the Report is to stabilise the value of land. Well, the person who drafted the terms of reference or made that statement, does not know what he is talking about. You cannot stabilise the value of land; the value of land constantly varies. What you can do is to stabilise the price of land, but it is physically impossible to stabilise its value. Even a Tory organisation like the Ipswich Chamber of Commerce has condemned the Report on that account. Secondly, the Report claims to put a tax on site values. It does nothing of the kind. It puts a tax on improvement, which is the very thing we want to avoid. I nearly got the same Chamber of Commerce to condemn the Report on that account, but they did not like to give approval to the views I hold about site values.
Thirdly, the compensation proposed in the Report will react entirely unfairly on the community. The proposal is that


whatever land is appropriated should be compensated for on the basis of the 1939 valuation. But no valuation was taken in 1939, so how it is to be done I do not know. But even if it were possible, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not forget that the 1939 values were grossly speculative, and that if that is to be the basis of appropriation, the landlords of the country will do what is vulgarly known as "Walk away with the swag." Fourthly, the Report does nothing at all to stimulate production which, after all, is an essential thing. By that I mean that in its approach to the whole land question, it places no penalty at all on those people who own or control land and who either use it badly or do not use it at all. For those reasons the Report stands condemned.
I wish to switch the Debate back to a point raised by the Secretary of State for War—whom I am glad to see here—after my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee) had spoken earlier in the day. The Minister quoted some remarks made by my hon. Friend in an election address and they prejudiced the Debate very much. I am not a pacifist and I am not really sure whether my right hon. Friend is a pacifist although the sentiments expressed were pacifist. Be that as it may, he had every right to express those sentiments. What I want to say to hon. Members opposite who jeered at those sentiments and "Hear hear'd" the Secretary of State for War is this, Let them not forget the part they played in arming Germany. I conclude with a quotation from none other than the Governor of the Bank of England. In a speech which he made in New York in the early days of 1932, in the presence of certain eminent bankers of that great city, he said:
We may have to lend the German people £50,000,000. We may never get it back but it will be less loss than the fall of Nazism.

Mr. Norman Bower: I think I should be ill-advised to attempt to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) in his slight digression. What I would like to do is, briefly, to support as strongly as I can the case very well put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr). I do not want to go

into matters of detail but I want to make out a case on general grounds and I hope the Minister without Portfolio will take advantage of this opportunity to make a really comprehensive and satisfactory statement on this subject. I can assure him that in the minds of many Members of this House and the great majority of the people of the country, this subject is second to none in importance and urgency. I am quite certain that the Minister has it in his power to contribute as much to the winning of the war in the shortest possible time as the most careful and elaborate planning on the part of the combined chiefs of staff, production boards and all the rest of the apparatus which is employed to plan and harmonise our war effort. These bodies can only achieve results if they have the wholehearted and unstinted support of the people of the country behind them.
People to-day are in what I might call a somewhat delicate frame of mind. We have been at war for rather more than 3½ years and although I am thankful to say there is not the slightest indication of war-weariness in the country, yet people are suffering from what is generally known as war nerves. In the first place, that sense of crisis which was aroused when acute and immediate danger threatened the country, and which prevailed during the time of Dunkirk and for some considerable time afterwards, no longer exists and there is a feeling that so far as the prospect of invasion and total destruction is concerned, the worst is over. On the other hand there seems to be a realisation that in some respects the worst is yet to come; that the real war has hardly yet begun, that a great deal more hard work will have to be done, great sacrifices made and great sufferings undergone before we are through, and that we shall need all our strength, inspiration and firmness of purpose from now on until the end. Alongside this realisation there is an undercurrent of uneasiness and dissatisfaction which even the Prime Minister, by his recent broadcast, has not altogether dispelled. I think recent by-elections have proved that conclusively. The curiously uninspired all-Party communications which have been going out in support of Government candidates, and which have invited the electors to believe that the verdict of a single constituency was flashed round the world as though it were the voice of Britain,


have been increasingly disregarded. Even the Prime Minister's recently expressed hope in this House that people would take every opportunity of expressing their disapproval of truce-breakers seems to be falling more and more on deaf ears.
I spend a good deal of time in my constituency and the impression that I have formed is that this uneasiness and dissatisfaction centres almost entirely round the doubts which people feel with regard to the Government's reconstruction policy and their anxiety as to the future. Memories of 1919, with its chaos, disillusion and frustration, are still too near at hand and too vivid for people to be able to feel any assurance that history will not be allowed to repeat itself, and they are looking for some tangible sign that the Government have no intention of allowing it to repeat itself. Unless the Government can do something to dispel that anxiety, it may prevent people putting forth that last ounce of energy and effort which is so urgently required. For example, members of local authorities tell me they are being impeded in their plans by the fact that they have no knowledge of the Government's intentions and attitude to planning problems and what power they are likely to be given, and I think the same is true of other parts of the country. Also there is a general feeling that the Beveridge Report, if it has not been quietly shelved, is, at any rate, no longer regarded as a matter of urgency.
I think it is most important that this feeling at the present critical time should be dispelled and I should like, as strongly as I can, to re-inforce the hope which my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Molson) expressed, that the Government will not be deterred from dealing with these matters by the knowledge that they are controversial. Every Measure during the last hundred years which has achieved anything worth while has been controversial. Some have been bitterly and violently controversial and, if it is possible for matters of this sort to be vetoed simply because certain groups of people who do not like them can get together and call them controversial, it means that we are not going to have any planning or progress at all till the, war is over and that the history of 1919 will be allowed to repeat itself. There are those, I know, who take the view that we should "keep our eye on the ball" to the ex-

clusion of everything else, and that it is premature to discuss these questions. They say: "Let us win the war first and then start to talk about these things." I cannot too strongly dissent from that view. Winning the war and planning for the future are not inconsistent but are complementary one to the other. All my contacts and association with people outside convince me that people will work harder, fight better and endure more if they have the assurance that concrete plans are being drawn up to ensure that, on this occasion, their sufferings and tribulations shall not have been in vain.

Mr. Mainwaring: I should like to take the opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the very serious manner in which this matter has been discussed by several Members. The greatest danger that the country is faced with at present is the growth of cynicism. There is, undoubtedly, a mass of cynicism regarding the Government's intentions, real or otherwise, in relation to post-war problems. Take the two matters which are uppermost in the minds of people to-day. The Beveridge Report will attain importance only if the Government fail in other respects. If the Government do their real duty there will be no need to bother about the Beveridge Report. It has attained such proportions in the minds of people because they do not believe the Government are serious. I represent a division which suffered more than any other area in the country after the last war, and I would do anything rather than go through again the experience of the last 20 years. Unfortunately, instead of evidence of provision for the immediate post-war period, we see evidence of the opposite. That will not do. When we have disposed of the enemy abroad the people of this country will deal with the enemy at home, and they will regard those people as enemies at home who have failed to make provision for them after they have defeated the enemy abroad.
Let us, therefore, see to it that no cause shall be given to the people, who will have fought and bled and died and sacrificed, to believe that there is left at home a greater enemy than they defeated abroad. The only way to do that is to make provision. To-day people may be offered two things. One is a great constructive scheme of social legislation in-


tended to meet the needs of our people arising from whatever cause—unemployment, sickness, poverty, or ill-health. The great evil that our people in South Wales have suffered from is unemployment. I do not care what your vision may be about social legislation, I prefer work. Before Beveridge, give me work. I ask my right hon. Friend, therefore, to give me some hope for my people. At present they are employed, men and women alike; to-morrow, when the war ends, tens of thousands of them will be returning from war industries to poverty-stricken homes. Poverty will overwhelm them where there is no work. I know it is a gigantic task, and I sympathise with my right hon. Friend in the immensity of the problem, but I urge him to use all his energy and to bring in all the genius possible in the nation, to ensure that our people will not again go through the horrors of the last 20 years.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am so wholly in agreement with my hon. Friends who have spoken, that I rise only to say a word on behalf of the body of men who are affected by demobilisation and for whom I have especial sympathy. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Kerr) referred to a remark of the Minister without Portfolio in December last that, subject to military needs, the broad principle on which demobilisation should proceed and on which plans had already been drawn up, was that discharge would be based, in the main, on age plus length of service. That principle does not do justice to our Forces in India and the Middle East and I invite him to make it clear, if not to-day, at the earliest possible moment, that service abroad will be taken into special consideration. I know it is true that those who have served in this country since the beginning of the war have been doing their duty and that nothing whatever can be said by way of criticism of a person who has so served, but that is not the only point. The point which has to be borne in mind is the effect of foreign service upon the young man who is continuously subjected to it, and particularly to service in the desert.
I know young men 10 and 11 years younger than myself who, at the critical age, when they come upon manhood, have been serving in the desert continuously

for perhaps 26 or 27 months out of the last 30. I know what they feel about the question of demobilisation because I have been there. I am in constant communication with them by correspondence and I want to refer to two letters which I received only recently from officers serving in the Eighth Army. The first said, "Mind you ask stinking Questions in the House if the 'rats' out here do not get home leave." The second said, "The chief after-the-war 'grouse' you hear out here is the fear that the Eighth Army may be sent further east instead of being sent home." After what my right hon. Friend has said, that danger is a real one, because in order to give justice to those men who have been serving in the Far East and the Middle East there must be a definite recognition of the effect of the unnatural conditions to which they have been subjected. The absence of home comforts and home life and of the effect of the extreme lonliness upon young men, should give them a definite priority in demobilisation over those who have been serving at home and living in their own milieu. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to say that what some of us desire as a mere measure of justice, should be accorded to these men.

Mr. Douglas: This Debate has covered a wide field and has attained a measure of unity because it has been actuated by concern about the future of our people after the war. I want to re-echo what my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) said. What the men in the Forces and the men in the factories are worried about is whether they will be able to get a job after the war and be able to earn wages in order to keep themselves. That is the thing above all others that is really concerning the people of this country, because they have not forgotten what they had to go through after the last war. We are in a country which is dependent upon international trade and, therefore, we are dependent upon the arrangements which can be made with other countries after the war, in order to promote the well-being of ourselves, our Allies and the whole world. I hope that the Government are not forgetting the pledges which have been given to the world in the Atlantic Charter and that they will be carried out in the spirit in which I believe they were entered into, without qualifications or reservations of any kind.
We must have a system under which the products of the world can be exchanged freely and equally between all countries. Unless we have that, we shall gradually drift into the position in which we were before the war, in which unemployment continued at very high levels and in which continuous uncertainty and anxiety prevailed. The whole of Europe became a closed area to imports from the United States and the rest of North and South America and from other parts of the world which were engaged in producing foodstuffs and other primary materials. In the attempt by European nations to create self-sufficiency other countries were brought into a condition of depression and despair, and that had its reaction also upon Europe. We have to get away from a system which produces such results. We have to get away from the idea of trying to make each country a closed economy. We have to recognise that we live in a world in which every person, every nation, is interdependent upon every other and in which the greatest production of wealth and the fairest distribution of it, can only be attained on the basis of producing it in those areas in which it can be produced best and most economically, instead of attempting to foster in an artificial way industries and production in areas which are not suited for them.
I would particularly like to mention the position with regard to housing after the war. There is a need of an exceptional and urgent character. There is not only the fact that a great many dwellings have been destroyed by the action of our enemies. There is a complete cessation of building and a wear-and-tear and lack of repair of existing buildings which have produced a great shortage of housing accommodation, particularly in London. When the people who have been evacuated during the war come back, there will be a clamour of a most alarming character for accommodation. It is a problem which will have to be faced and faced very energetically. We have had some mention today of the report of the Uthwatt Committee. I press upon my right hon. and learned Friend the view that the Uthwatt Committee did not cover a large part of the field which has to be considered in connection with housing and replanning. One of the greatest obstacles that our local authorities have had to face up and down the country is the enormous price they have to pay for land for housing, street

widening and other replanning purposes. The Uthwatt Committee did not touch that problem because it was outside their terms of reference; therefore, this is a problem which I hope—indeed, I venture to feel sure—that my right hon. and learned Friend is examining.
We cannot go on under a system in which land is held up against the demand for housing and other purposes, at exorbitant and outrageous prices. I hope that some attention will also be paid to the adverse effects of our system of local rating, which is imposing a heavy burden upon the provision of housing accommodation. If we want to get housing more cheaply, we must consider whether some change will not have to take place in that respect. I hope some plan will be made by which questions of the valuation of land and the incidence of rates, and all the other economic factors which bear upon this important industry, which is capable of giving a great deal of employment after the war, will be dealt with in a manner calculated to raise the barriers now opposed to the building of houses.

Earl Winterton: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate when I came down to the House, but I should like to say that I rather regret that more hon. Members have not found it possible to be present to hear the really remarkable unanimity of opinion which has been expressed from both sides. I should like in the name of my hon. Friends opposite, with whom, frankly, I am associated in this matter, to thank my hon. Friends on this side, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and others, for the very generous tributes they have paid to the speeches made by my hon. Friends opposite. It just shows how frequently in the House of Commons, on what appears to be an unlikely occasion, when not much interest is evident, speeches of vivid interest are made.
In the few words I have to say I should like, in the first place, to point out the extreme inconvenience of the system which has grown up—I do not say the Government are to blame—in connection with the offices both of my right hon. and learned Friend sitting opposite and of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. What is the situation? Those Ministers have practically no administrative duties in the ordinary sense of the word, they have no great Departments to control, and


what they are engaged upon, as we hope we may hear from my right hon. and learned Friend, are very extensive plans for the future rehabilitation of this country both during this Parliament and afterwards. All that will require legislation, and therefore, unless some special occasion is given by the Government, it is almost impossible to discuss the work of their offices. If it is discussed on the Adjournment, you, Mr. Speaker—I say it with respect to you—like every other occupant of the Chair, will naturally rule it out of Order because it would involve legislation. If we asked for the administrative Estimates to be put down, we should doubtless be told again that this question is one which will require legislation and one which we cannot discuss on Estimates. Therefore, I would suggest to my hon. Friend opposite who is one of the Assistant Whips, indeed to the Whips of both sides, that they should consider whether there should not be put down some Motion which would bring a discussion of both offices and a discussion of legislation into Order, so that we might discuss both what my right hon. and learned Friend is doing and what the prospective Minister of Town and Country Planning is doing. It is easy to be satirical about this, but I have no hesitation in saying that the average Member of the House, quite apart from the average member of the public, is in almost complete doubt as to the intentions of those two right hon. Gentlemen, as to the differentiation between them, and as to what they are going to do.
I associate myself most strongly with the speeches made from the Benches behind me, and with speeches made from the Benches opposite, on one aspect of the question, and far the most important aspect. An hon. Friend of mine on the Benches behind, who represents one of the divisions of Wales, said it was just too dreadful to contemplate what will happen in this country if a condition of affairs arises after the war similar to that which arose after the last war. I want to say in the simplest possible terms, not having prepared any statement in advance—and I would ask my hon. Friends on this side to accept this from me as an earnest expression of opinion—that it really is not a question of class or party or of youth or age. No person in the country with any decent feelings can contemplate without

horror such a condition of affairs as arose from 1920 onwards. I can assure the Government, and I can assure the Prime Minister also, that not only will my hon. Friends who normally sit on this side of the House but some of us also will have a great deal to say after the war which might be described as of a revolutionary character if we are faced with that sort of situation.
There is a less important but pertinent point in connection with this matter. I hope my hon. Friends on this side will not mind my mentioning it when it is for them in a rather delicate state of suspended animation, for certain domestic reasons connected with their party. I want to see, and I think a great many of my hon. Friends want to see, this form of Government continued during the war, and, I must add, after the war; but let me warn the Government and warn my right hon. and learned Friend that mere statements of a somewhat banal character that we must all support the war effort, that we must all believe in the Prime Minister and everything will be all right, will not win many more by-Elections. There will have to be some fuller statement of what the Government are going to do during the war and after, and if my hon. Friends on the Right—if there be any on the extreme Right, and I do not say there are—or my hon. Friends on the extreme Left say "We object because that particular statement is a Tory doctrine or a Socialist doctrine"—then the Government will have to face up to that position. If the extreme Tories or the extreme Socialists do not like, we cannot help it. The Government will have to go on. We cannot have the Government saying "We cannot do this because the Socialists do not like it," or "We cannot do that because the Tories do not like it." No Government can be carried on in that way.
I therefore beg my right hon. and learned Friend to be as explicit as he can. It does not matter, if he does offend some of us who are Tories and some who are Socialists. I use the old-fashioned terms which they use in the country. Why should a Conservative not call himself a Tory? Let us call ourselves what everybody else calls us, Tories and Socialists. What is important, and I agree on this point with my hon. Friend who represents one of the divisions of Wales, is


that the public should not get into the cynical state when they say, "We have heard these people talking, these Tories and Socialists. They have been years in power. What do they mean to us? They talk a lot of things, they say this and that and they say a lot of things, but what are they going to do?" There is another point which all of us who are practical politicians in this House should never forget, and it is that a great number of people are growing up, and are going to join the Army this year, who have never had any ordinary political instruction of any kind. They know nothing about the policies of the Socialist party or of the Tory party. Those are the people upon whom, after the war, we shall largely depend to govern the country, and the Government will have to convince them that the policy put forward will be for the benefit of the country. I apologise for standing between the House and the right hon. and learned Gentleman for even a few minutes, but I hope that I have not been unhelpful. I am speaking, I believe, for many sections of opinion, almost the House as a whole, in saying that we want to know more than we have heard about the present and the future policy of this Government.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question before he replies, and at the same time I should like to add my humble word of congratulation to the tributes which have already been paid to the hon. Member opposite. Great responsibility hangs upon the Minister without Portfolio.
In spite of what may have been said about opinion in the country, I still feel that the public are most anxious to know what the plans of the Government will be, and it is vital that those plans should be worked out as quickly as possible. As I say, it is a great burden that hangs upon the Minister, and the question I want to ask is whether some of the outside organisations which have been working on various problems of reconstruction are to continue to do so. I have heard that some departments of Universities are now being discouraged from continuing certain work which they have been doing in the past. It is a great pity if that is so. I hope they will not be discouraged, but on the contrary given facilities for carrying on independent research. It seems most desirable that independent research into

many aspects of this vast question of reconstruction should be continued, it may be for some time, even though it may not always follow quite the lines which the Government Departments like. I do not think there can be a very good reason for discouraging them, and I am sure it would not be one that would appeal to the Minister. It may be that to some extent they duplicate the work, but I am not sure that that would not be of value. We have not to make the mistakes that we made after the last war, and the solution of these problems is very difficult. The question I want to put to the Minister is whether he will encourage these outside organisations to continue their research on the special problems on which they have been engaged.

The Minister Without Portfolio (Sir William, Jowitt): Several hon. Members who have spoken have found it rather difficult to keep within the rules of Order and to avoid discussion of legislation. I find it rather difficult to reply to a good many of the matters which have been raised both for that reason and also because I am called upon to deal with a number of matters which are quite plainly within the province of some of my colleagues. After all, as I pointed out before—and I do hope the House has got this plain—what are these functions which I have to carry out? I am leaving out Beveridge, if I may for the moment, because I will discuss it presently. It would be absolutely impossible for me to make myself responsible for all the matters which have been mentioned, such as the export trade, the provision of work, the Uthwatt Report, and a good many others, and I do not try to do it. Each of these matters is the concern of some other Government Department, but it very often happens that something which concerns one Government Department also concerns some other Government Department. One Government Department may like a particular method of approach, which method may be unfortunate to the interests of another Government Department. You have to get a policy which everybody agrees to, and therefore my task is to see that the proposals which the Ministers of particular Departments put up are so moulded or modified, if necessary, as to fit in with the interests of the Government and of the country as a whole. That involves that I get to know a great deal


about what is being done in those Departments and the lines of approach which they are taking. I see their papers and I can consult with the Departments, but I must be a little careful in making replies in this House lest I should be accused by my colleagues of trespassing on their territory; but, subject to that, I shall do the best I can to deal with the various topics which have been mentioned.
May I take those topics in the order in which they were mentioned? In that way I shall not forget any of them. The first question I was asked by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) related to the Uthwatt Committee. When I spoke on 1st December last I said that we had determined to set up a Minister of Town and Country Planning. The noble Lord will realise that he had a chance then of having me on the mat, but he was kind enough on that day to let me off, I think. In my speech I announced to the House that we were going to set up the Minister. For some weeks previous to that I had, in fact, been doing the work of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Of course, when we set up the Minister I handed over to that Minister all those matters which fell within his Department. The Uthwatt Report and all that it embraces fall within the primary responsibility of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I do not know whether his Bill is yet available to Members, but he is bringing in an Interim Development Bill which protects the position of interim development. Although he proceeds by steps, with true Scottish caution, he is a pretty determined sort of person, and he means to get up the staircase even though he goes one step at a time. His next step, I imagine, to which the Government have announced their approval, is to give local authorities ample powers to purchase land. We have indicated that we were in favour of such a provision, so that if land of any sort is involved in a reconstruction plan the local authority may buy the land and develop the land as a whole.
Then, of course, will come the Uthwatt Report. That Report has certainly never been pigeon-holed, if "pigeon-holed" means put in a hole and left there disregarded. On the contrary; it has been very actively canvassed one way and the other. The Minister of Town and

Country Planning is looking into this matter and giving a great deal of attention to it, and in due course he will present his conclusions, I have no doubt, to the Ministerial Committee over which I preside dealing with reconstruction matters. We have not yet got his conclusions—and indeed he has not been in his office a very long time. I do not think he has wasted any time at all in doing what he has, and I expect he will shortly let us have his views about it. So that I answer the hon. Member by saying, when he asks to what extent I have transferred, that the primary responsibility is transferred entirely. It is entirely now with the Minister of Town and Country Planning to make his proposals, and it remains for me in this matter, as it does in any other matter if conflict, controversy or difference of view arises between that Department and any other Department, to do the best I can to help to find a solution.

Mr. Ammon: Some of us are probably a little dull. Would the Minister tell us exactly where the line of demarcation is between his office and the office of the Minister of Town and Country Planning?

Sir W. Jowitt: The whole matter of town and country planning, the existing Acts, the Uthwatt Report, all those things, are entirely the concern of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. There is no question of overlapping. I stand in relation to his Department in the same position as I stand to half-a-dozen other Departments, namely, when he has some proposal which he wants to put in, in order that that proposal may be looked at from all angles to sec how it affects other Departments, he puts that proposal up before my Committee. If necessary, we have it looked at by the Official Committee, then it goes on to the Ministerial Committee and then we pass it on to the War Cabinet.

Mr. Ammon: You are a co-ordinating Committee?

Sir W. Jowitt: We are the co-ordinating Committee, but there is no question of conflict between us. We are absolutely distinct.

Sir Irving Albery: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has more or less answered the question which I wanted to put to


him, and from what he says it appears that he has really no function of initiation. Other Departments may or may not initiate plans, and he merely has a co-ordinating function. If that is so, I must say it is quite different from what we understood.

Sir W. Jowitt: That is substantially right, and that is what I stated in plain terms on 1st December, subject to this, that there were certain topics where there was no Department primarily concerned or where so many Departments were equally concerned that you could say that the topic did not fall into the ambit of any particular Department, for example, civil aviation or demobilisation, with which many Departments are concerned. When that happens, I play a primary role. If the hon. Member will do me the honour of reading my speech again—I am sorry to ask him to do it, but I took some trouble with that speech—I think he might find it absolutely plain. When a matter which is primarily the concern of one Ministry comes up from that Ministry to my Department, I act merely as a coordinator, or as chief co-ordinator, except that in regard to those matters for which there is no Minister primarily responsible, I myself take the primary role.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: Can the Minister ask a particular Department to study a problem?

Sir W. Jowitt: Certainly, I can, and I very often do. I encourage all sorts of research. I cannot understand the frame of mind of a person who does not encourage research because he thinks he is going to get an answer he does not like. The more research that I have, the better. Very often in the light of that research which people are good enough to send to me there is some problem which occurs to me, and I write to the colleague in whose province it falls.

Sir Alfred Beit: Does not that mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a sort of inverted Poo-Bah?

Sir W. Jowitt: I should be an inverted Poo-Bah if I was foolish enough to try to take responsibility for all those things. I should be Minister of Town and Country Planning, President of the Board of Trade, etc. It is just because I am not an

inverted Poo-Bah that I take care not to overlap with the various Departments in whose primary responsibility these matters arise.
I now come to the Beveridge Report. It was actually published on the same day as my speech when I set out the reconstruction machinery. Therefore the Beveridge machinery has arisen since that speech. I am anxious to make clear what the Beveridge machinery is. It is different from the machinery I have indicated for reconstruction, and different in this respect: When reconstruction problems come before a committee it is a Committee of Ministers over which I preside. When Beveridge problems come up before a committee of the War Cabinet it is not a Committee over which I preside. When we had the Beveridge Debate the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) made a most interesting and informative speech, and he indulged his fancy by picking the names of the ideal Committee of Minister he would appoint in the same way as in times of test matches we amuse ourselves by picking the English team to play against the Australians. There is an inveterate rule by which I am bound, and which I heard the Prime Minister repeat recently, that names of members of Cabinet Committees must not be disclosed. Therefore, I must be very discreet. Perhaps I might say that if the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon compared our list with his, he would not be altogether disappointed. I am afraid I must leave it at that.
It is obvious that you want for Beveridge, where you may have frequently to take very important decisions, or at any rate a number of decisions, some authoritative body who can take them. What have we done with regard to Beveridge, because I do want to protest as vigorously as I can against the idea that we are pigeon-holing Beveridge or putting it to sleep? That simply is not true. Oddly enough, the point on which that accusation is very often based is that we have not immediately appointed a Minister of Social Security. People who say that very often forget, I think, that Sir William Beveridge himself, when he was indicating how this thing was to be worked out, contemplated that it should be done either by a Minister, a group of Ministers, or a body of Commissioners for this temporary period, because I am


only dealing with the temporary period during which we are working out the proposals. We think it better, and have deliberately come to the conclusion that it is better to work on those lines, namely, to leave, for instance, to the Minister of Health those various problems arising out of sickness insurance, to leave to the Minister of Labour those various problems arising out of unemployment insurance, to leave to the Home Office those various problems dealing with workmen's compensation, because, after all, in those Departments there are the officials who are experienced and who have given many years of time to working on those problems. If you were to appoint a Minister of Social Security—and he has got to be a real Minister; he has to be able to function efficiently and quickly—you would have to perform a surgical operation by cutting away from those various Departments the staffs they have got, and be it observed how extraordinarily difficult that would be in war-time.

Dr. Morgan: Why should it be difficult?

Sir W. Jowitt: I will tell the hon. Member why. Because you do not in a Government Department, especially in the case of senior civil servants, work in completely watertight compartments, or confine yourself to one particular aspect of things, but are engaged on various matters that concern your Department. Some of those Departments are very busy. If you tried to provide the Minister of Social Security with the staff that would be necessary both to administer the current work, because I suppose that would have to be done, and all that staff with skill and experience you want to advise you as to the line you are going to take, I believe you would have very great difficulty indeed.

Earl Winterton: I would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer this question, which I believe he will think is a fair one. What many of us feel, to use a colloquialism, is that the Government have put the cart before the horse. They have set up a Ministry of Town and Country Planning. We believe that the difficulty in setting up a Ministry of Social Security would not be greater than that which was faced, for instance, by the Coalition Government in the last

war when they set up several new Ministries and that in any case the difficulty would not have been as great as it will be now owing to the creation of these two Ministries which will only deal with part of the question of social security.

Sir W. Jowitt: I do not think the Ministry of Town and Country Planning has anything to do with this at all. I put this to the House. We want to get this Beveridge scheme through as soon as we can. We want to be able to get our legislation as soon as we can. Looking at it as a purely practical business matter, is it not better to use, for example, your Ministry of Health who can get on with the job and get people working on that, and have perhaps some strong Cabinet Committee—a very strong Cabinet Committee—to whom you have to make progress reports from time to time, and if you have not done this or that within a certain time you will get your knuckles rapped? Similarly with the Home Office as regards workmen's compensation. To take my province, for instance, children's allowances are a new thing, which are not within the ambit of any existing Government Department. There is death benefit. That is a new thing. Therefore, with regard to these two things, I have taken them over, and I am working on them, or a staff is working on them under me. I have been lucky enough to get seven very highly placed civil servants to deal with this work and to co-ordinate the development of the work as a whole. We make our report to this Cabinet Committee where we can get authoritative rulings and instruction. No doubt in really important cases the War Cabinet would be consulted.
That is the machinery. I suggest that if hon. Members will look at it, it is a far more efficient and practical business method of getting results. It is one of the methods which Sir W. Beveridge himself contemplated. I am quite satisfied that if you had torn away from these Departments—what you would do with current administration I do not know—blocks of civil servants, you would have had no quicker speed but much more delay in coming to your final conclusions.

Dr. Morgan: Does the Minister mean that, in this mummification of the Beveridge Report which he has just described to us, he has co-ordinating


powers, or is the work still to be carried out in the various Government Departments?

Sir W. Jowitt: I am not mummifying the Beveridge Report at all. I am telling the House the arrangements which we think are the best business arrangements—it is all a matter of business—for translating as quickly as possible the Beveridge Report, or those parts of it which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council told the House the Government had accepted, into legislative form.

Dr. Morgan: Without co-ordination?

Mr. Molson: This throws an entirely new light upon the matter of organisation. I still find this quite impossible to reconcile with the explanation given by the Lord President of the Council, when he spoke of the setting up of a small central staff of experienced people to devote their whole time to the matter, which would be under my right hon. and learned Friend. I understand that the actual task of co-ordinating the work of the Ministry of Labour and that of the Ministry of Health is under a War Cabinet Committee, and that my right hon. and learned Friend is concerned only with the matters which do not fall within the ambit of these Departments.

Sir W. Jowitt: Substantially, that is right. Let me explain how I have been working. It occurred to me that the first thing was to get a clear line of demarcation, so that everybody knew exactly what he was to do. I suppose you can call that co-ordination if you like. I took it upon myself to prepare twenty heads, most of them sub-divided under three or four sub-heads, which could be allocated to the various Departments. When I say that I did it, it was, of course, the staff that did it; entire credit is due to them. Then we discussed it with the various Departments and got them to accept it, so that we were able to present to the War Cabinet Committee an agreed plan, under which each Department knew what its job was. Each Department will in due course present its progress reports to the War Cabinet Committee. We do not work in any spirit of hostility to one another. We all tell each other what our plans are. I see the reports which go to the War Cabinet Committee, and I sometimes say, "Cannot you modify this here

or there?" Each Department has a clearly defined sphere. I have given illustrations of the more important spheres. Each of the Departments goes direct to this very high-powered Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "And each Department has warned other Departments off its own sphere."] It is not a case of warning off. We are not warning each other off. The point is that you do not want a lot of people working on the same problem at the same time.

Mr. Hogg: What is troubling us is the question of what control this House has over the whole matter. Is there any Minister to whom we can address questions on the whole subject?

Sir W. Jowitt: Questions relating to unemployment should be addressed to the Minister of Labour, questions relating to sickness to the Minister of Health, and questions relating to children's allowances and death benefits to me. Any major question affecting the scheme as a whole can always be addressed to the Prime Minister. I think that is right. That is the arrangement we have made to deal with the matter and in that way I think the House can keep control.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: My right hon. and learned Friend says that questions relating to civil aviation, children's allowances and death benefits should be addressed to him. This has been revealed in this Debate. What other questions can be addressed to him?

Sir W. Jowitt: Civil aviation has nothing to do with the Beveridge Report. I gave that as an illustration of a topic which had no Minister specially responsible for it. Let us stick to Beveridge. I gave two main illustrations of new topics which were not covered by any existing Department, because we do not have children's allowances or death benefits. I said I was taking on responsibility for them, and that I should report to the War Cabinet Committee. In regard to other matters, other Ministers will report to the War Cabinet Committee. That we believe to be the most expeditious way of coming to a conclusion. I am dealing only with Beveridge now. I have tried, to the best of my ability, to deal with the question. I hope I have been able to remove some misapprehension. I would like to give some assurances, if I may. I am quite satisfied that this thing is not being lulled to sleep,


put on one side, or pigeonholed. I have seen the work that is going on—very active work is going on. I personally can assure the House that I shall make my contribution to the best of my ability; and I shall remember the old Latin proverb that he gives twice who gives quickly. Some of the problems are really very difficult, and when you get down to the details you come up against difficulties which you never knew existed; so it is not going to be an easy matter or a quick matter.
Several Members have already commented on the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr), and, if it would not be an impertinence, I should like to associate myself with the tributes. I agree with every word of the speech, and I liked the powerful way in which it was delivered. The hon. Member spoke of problems of demobilisation, as did the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg). I am certain that the first essential of a demobilisation scheme is that it should not only be a fair scheme, but that it should be a scheme which the men think is fair. If you get a scheme which men think is not fair, that scheme is broken at the start. If you were to consider merely the claims of industry, there would be something to be said for the principle of last in, first out. The hand of the man who has left the workshop for the shortest time is perhaps less out of practice. But that would be a monstrously unfair scheme. On the other hand, to be too rigid in making a man take his place in the queue when he is a key man, whose demobilisation would give work to other people, would be obviously wrong. We have to try to hold the balance. We must not have so many exceptions to the scheme that we really do away with the principle of age and length of service, but, on the other hand, we must not be so rigid that we retain men who in the interests of trade as a whole ought to be back in civil life. The broad principle is age and length of service, but there must be a latitude so that some men may come out before their normal turn, subject always to the proviso that exceptions must not be so numerous that the scheme breaks down.
Then comes a question to which I have given consideration but to which, after hearing the hon. Member for Oxford today, I will give consideration again. But I must tell the House that it is difficult.

It sounds easy if you compare, for instance, a man in the Eighth Army with a fellow who has been sitting at home all the time—though very often, mark you, the man sitting at home wished he had had the chance of being with the Eighth Army. But when you get to intermediate cases they are very difficult. Take the Air Force as the example. Fighters and bomber squadrons are at home. Are you to compare them with the Army of occupation in Madagascar or Iceland? It is very difficult. Should you have a different grading for each of these classes, analysing the nature of service and so on? I am not going to attempt to give an answer to-day, but I do say that the matter having already received some consideration I will see that it is considered again.

Earl Winterton: May I put one point to my right hon. and learned Friend? A calamitous decision was reached in the last war—I do not think it was altogether the fault of the Prime Minister although he was primarily responsible—to demobilise key men. Men were released who had only just joined the Army, instead of men with three or four years' service. Incidents of a most serious character arose very largely from the grievance felt by men who had served three or four years. Even though the release of men with short service might lead to the employment of thousands of other men, it did cause trouble.

Sir W. Jowitt: I agree that in exceptional cases it may be done and should be done, but if you open the door wide and bring out a lot of people who have only served a short time in easy conditions, to the prejudice of men who have served a long time, then men will say they are not having a fair deal, and the whole thing will break down with most unfortunate consequences.

Mr. Martin: May I ask my right hon. and learned friend, who is to adjudicate on these cases when they arise? It is only when the moment arrives, that we shall be able to get equity. Who will hear the cases and decide whether or not they fall into a particular category?

Sir W. Jowitt: In some cases it will be done by instructions given to commanding officers, and in other cases the matter will be dealt with by departmental chiefs at the War Office.

Mr. Martin: Then the decision very often will be that of the commanding officer?

Sir W. Jowitt: Sometimes.

Mr. Martin: I would ask that this matter should be considered very carefully.

Sir W. Jowitt: I do not want to go into the matter in any detail at this moment. I would like in the ordinary case to have notice of that question, so that I can ascertain what really is the answer. I am not satisfied with my answer.
The next question referred to by the hon. Member for Oldham was the position regarding exports. On that the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) made a speech which I think we all liked. He said, and I believe it to be profoundly true, that what is far more important than the Beveridge plan or anything else is the provision of work. Provision of work for men at decent wages is the one aim we must have in view. Is is very easy to say that, but I believe that I am right when I say this is not only a question of economics, but a question of morals. We have gone through this war together in a spirit which I hope will continue after the war. We are going through a difficult time after the war, but the fact that this country has had the courage and ingenuity to get through the difficulties of war, makes one believe that we shall be able to get through the difficulties in regard to employment.
The export trade is, of course, of vital importance. I am speaking now of a subject which concerns the Department of Overseas Trade and the Board of Trade so I must be careful and the House must protect me, if I get my knuckles rapped by those Departments. It is important that we should not waste time after this war. It will be so easy to look to the home market that we may make the mistake of not concerning ourselves, immediately, about exports. We must be very careful not to fall into that error. Immediately the opportunity arises we must do everything we possibly can to win back and increase our export trade. For my own part, I believe that international co-operation is very necessary. I believe the greatest freedom of trade will suit this country best. I believe that we ought to have, and I hope that we

shall have, much wider international cooperation than we had before the war, but the difficulty is that, at the moment, we do not know what will be the nature of international co-operation. Until we have a definite idea about that, it is difficult to say anything about it.
I was asked questions about the location of industry. That concerns the Board of Trade. I was asked about housing. That is a matter which concerns the Ministry of Health. I was asked about various other matters, but I have already occupied too much time and I cannot go into them all. I hope that I have dealt with the bulk of the questions put to me. I want the House to believe that this Government, from the Prime Minister down to its humblest member, does regard this question of getting through the peace and providing employment as of the most vital importance. If one could get out of the difficulty by making revolutionary speeches, I would go about making revolutionary speeches, but the trouble is that we should then only get deeper into the mud.

Earl Winterton: I did not advocate revolution.

Sir W. Jowitt: No, but the Noble Lord said that if we did have mass unemployment he might make revolutionary speeches. If that would do any good, we would all do it. We have, however, a great advantage over those who had to deal with the period following the last war. We have a knowledge of what happened then. We have a better appreciation of the function of money than people had then. We pay more attention now to the provision of goods and services and less attention to a mere piece of paper with "One Pound" printed on it. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) will realise that if I am not becoming his pupil, I am, at all events, willing to learn from his utterances. I am discreet, I do not take in everything he says necessarily, but I listen and I try to winnow the chaff from the grain. We must try to increase our productive activity so far as we possibly can. That is far more important than trying to divide up what we have got. We must increase our efficiency. Our plans must be efficient and our workers must be efficient. They must have good health and conditions. Factories must be in suitable places. We


must apply modern, up-to-date methods and we have to show the same ingenuity and skill in getting over the troubles of the future, as we showed when we got over the troubles of the Battle of Britain. If we do that, there really is no fear that we shall drift back into that frightful unemployment, which, I agree wholeheartedly, was a tragedy for millions of people in this country between the two wars.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with me to this extent, that the fulfilment of all the promises he has mentioned depends not, as is often stated, on our financial resources, but on the proper application and use of our economic resources?

Sir W. Jowitt: I agree that they depend on the proper application and use of our economic resources.

Sir I. Albery: I have listened to this Debate with great interest and we are all very anxious to know what steps the Government are taking to deal with the many problems which will arise the moment the war terminates. These problems are of two kinds, long-term problems and short-term problems. Nearly all our discussions are about long-term policy, and most of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to concerns long-term problems, but before any long-term policy can be implemented in this

House there must be a critical period after the war when various temporary emergency policies will have to be put into force to carry us over the interim period. There will be in all probability—although I do not say this with any wish to deter people from making plans—a considerable period during which long-term policy plans can be matured, an interregnum period. What I am worried and concerned about—and my right hon. and learned Friend in his speech has not relieved me in any way, and I am not blaming him, as it seems to be a matter of major Government policy—is that I have not heard a single thing about steps which are being taken to deal with that critical interregnum period which will come immediately after the war and before a long-term policy based on international agreement can possibly be put into operation. Are the Government doing anything about it? Are they making plans? Is it a charge upon any particular Minister to co-operate in these plans? Are we going to furnish the country with an immature long-term policy, not yet conceived, and have no plans made for the interregnum period?

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly till Tuesday, 4th May, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.